Germany’s move to legalise cannabis expected to create ‘domino effect’
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
For anyone else wanting to know more about the Dutch policy on this: https://www.government.nl/topics/drugs/toleration-policy-reg...
I never understood why it is exactly that The Netherlands were kind of against the drug tourism. I mean, I'm sure your average pot head tourist is not that much trouble and leaves quite a bit of money, no?
I studied in The Netherlands and always thought I'd be proud as a country to be that "progressive" in a sense -- especially once it became clear that other countries were following.
I guess there was enough trouble that some people thought it was worth trying to cut back on. Money isn’t everything
Instead Amsterdam wants to court tourists who fly in, spend a week or two, go to many tourist destinations, spend a bit more money at many locations. It spreads it around the city/country, does less wear and tear to a few places, and makes the locals lives much nicer.
In Canada the crossing signs with a countdown display how much time you have left to cross not how long the wait will be.
A lot of the drug tourism isn't the stuff like that, that you're probably thinking about. A lot of it happens in border towns and is essentially trafficking by criminals. They come to the Netherlands, buy quite a bit of weed and go back to their home countries to sell it. In those countries it's illegal, hence the criminal part. These are not the types of people we like to have visiting our country.
aha, they literally only come for weed and prostitutes, let's say it doesn't attract the most well behaved people in the world. Imagine the typical German or English 20 something years old tourist in Mallorca but instead of being drunk they're stoned.
Low travel cost + mass tourism + young adults + drugs = problems. You can travel there for 70 euros back and forth from any major city in Europe
It's limited to very specific streets but these streets are hell on earth, I don't even know why people go there anymore: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/world/europe/amsterdam-to...
So they're sitting in cafes eating fried food? What exactly do you think stoned people do lol
I'm not Dutch and I really enjoy going to Amsterdam, have friends living there, etc. From what I gather those are the main complaints, just annoyances and not really major problems.
Financing criminals when these same tourists go searching for other drugs, that's a real issue.
Disclaimer: I don't believe that weed is a gateway drug and I'm very pro decriminalisation of drugs and legalisation of recreational cannabis.
Sounds like you're describing the behavior of people who've had too much to drink. Alcohol is already legal.
> What exactly do you think stoned people do lol
There are many subsets of stoners, just like a guy drinking half a bottle of red wine at every dinner isn't the same type of alcoholic as the guy emptying a vodka bottle everyday by noon.
I used many drugs, with many people, some people are just trash, sober or drugged, drugs don't transform them into well behaved and civilised people
> What exactly do you think stoned people do lol
What kind of people travel hundreds of kilometers for a joint sand some titties behind a window ? ...
It's a subset of the problem of overtourism in general.
I mean, I'm sure your average pot head tourist is not that much trouble and leaves quite a bit of money, no?
Actually they don't, and that's precisely the problem. They come over on EasyJet, check into a shitty hostel, score some weed, buy a shawarma (and maybe some fries), oggle the working professionals in the red light district for a bit, and then leave a few days later.
This is a stereotype of course and not 100 percent true -- but it also probably intersects about 60 percent with the spending profile of the average weed tourist. On average not usually the type to visit anything other than the most obvious tourist destinations, or patronize any of the better restaurants, or avail themselves to any of the amazingly cool stuff that city has to offer.
Since growing weed is purely done by criminals right now, we're also afraid to legalize because legal weed farms might get issues with criminal involvement or threat because the criminals lose a huge income source. If we don't legalize however when Germany does, we'll then get a bunch of trafficking from Germany to the Netherlands.
We're in a bit of a pickle and it'll be interesting to see what our Christian/Liberal/Progressive government will come up with. I expect them to just ignore it and continue by doing pretty much nothing until it's a real problem.
Oregon legalized weed and this hasn't been a huge problem. But if people fear it is, the solution to this is simple. Make it easy to become a legal grower.
> The $2.78 billion in illegal marijuana found in Southern Oregon dwarfs the nearly $1.2 billion in legal marijuana sold at shops in the entire state in 2021.
> Behind the scenes, immigrant workers may face threats of violent retaliation against their relatives in Mexico if they complain about living and working conditions at illegal sites, or the withholding of wages.
> “The cartels will kill their family back in Mexico. They know there is a realistic likelihood that would happen,” Barden said.
https://www.mailtribune.com/top-stories/2022/01/22/pot-busts...
> “We’ve heard of the threat of harm to your family if you don’t go with us”, Daniel said. “And then they are transported up to the location. From what we are understanding, these workers are not paid until the end of the year when the shipment goes out and the money is brought in. There’s not like a weekly payroll going on here.”
> Sixteen other state and federal agencies joined the Josephine County Sheriff’s department in the raid, including the Department of Homeland Security. The operation included more than 1,300 acres of property as well as 200 workers.
> Officials found workers living in squalid conditions, which included sleeping on cardboard mats or inside tends. Workers denying that they had been trafficked, Daniel said. The Department of Homeland Security offered victim services to the workers, but all turned them down, according to Daniel. This could be for several reasons, including fear of their employers or immigration authorities.
https://www.oregonlive.com/marijuana/2021/08/southern-oregon...
> Sergeant Cliff Barden, of the Oregon State Police Basin Interagency Narcotics Enforcement Team (BINET), said illegal grows in Klamath County are clearly linked to drug cartels. He said the cartel’s strategy in the area is to overwhelm local agencies and resources with the sheer volume of production, ensuring that much of the operation will go unnoticed and ultimate generating immense profits.
> “They are intentionally trying to overwhelm the system,” Barden said. “And that is why it is so difficult.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/clear-links-between-illega...
Take coffee for instance, it's widely grown in South America--is most of the production run by cartels?
Or is it just that cannabis is a high-value crop, and it's easier to move the produce around the USA from within, rather than having to smuggle it over the border?
And if cannabis is a high-value crop, is it because not all states have 'legalised' it?
What if the whole world legalised cannabis, would it become like coffee?
As a different example, there are "dry towns" where alcohol sales are illegal. The bordering bars where it is legal do very well.
I remember a few years back, someone in the Dutch police claimed the Netherlands was on its way to becoming a narco-state [1].
I'm ignorant about the domestic issues there, so correct me, but it seems like the legality of drugs is a separate issue to the control of organised crime in the country.
I think the closest analogy for Americans is what happened during prohibition.
Here's a 70 page report only on cocaine trade.
https://border-security-report.com/the-cocaine-pipeline-to-e...
It is expensive place with miserable weather. Dutch ladies are always a nice sight though. Plus those drunken crowds of mostly young British around Red light district won't be missed by me.
I wish there was a legal standard whereby if the state stops prosecuting a law, the law automatically can be invalidated by a court. We have lots of things that are illegal that are only used by prosecutors when they want to throw the book at someone.
There are three parts to the law:
1. The legislature must draft the law
2. The executives must enforce the law.
3. The judicial must punish for breaking the law.
If (2) never happens, then it never gets to (3). And courts can "invalidate" a law: jury nullification.
(This is also why federal drug legalization could, in theory, be achieved through executive order, if Dems had the spine for that.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
Basically, if they can somehow connect it to interstate commerce - even if it very indirect, like in this case where growing something for personal consumption affected demand - it's "constitutional", supposedly.
This is the case that explicitly extended this reasoning to drugs:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/356939/support-legal-marijuana-...
This doesn’t invalidate the law. It decides one case in a particular way. An invalidated law is unenforceable for everyone.
Technically, there’s nothing illegal about a judge telling the jury about nullification either.
If you want to get kicked right off a jury start talking about nullification. Waiting in my jury pool to be called/dismissed one of the prospective jurors started handing out FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Amendment) flyers to anyone who was interested before we went into the courtroom.
http://www.ibiblio.org/fija/fijaintr.htm
The bailiff called him forcibly into the judges quarters and everyone he had spoken to was sent home.
That's not an accurate explanation of the situation in the US.
Cannabis is illegal at the federal level. Separately, it is illegal in some states too (although fewer and fewer as the years go by). States do not have the power to prosecute people under federal law, so in states where the state has legalized marijuana, prosecutors (DA, AG, etc.) have no basis to file criminal charges.
The federal prohibition means that people can be prosecuted for possession on federal land, or if a federal agency (such as the FBI) takes enough interest to enforce the federal law, but they rarely bother at this point.
> I wish there was a legal standard whereby if the state stops prosecuting a law, the law automatically can be invalidated by a court.
What you are describing is actually closer to the Dutch system. Marijuana is illegal there, but because it's been "tolerated" (best translation of the Dutch word) for long enough, it's not actually legal for them to enforce the law anymore. (Well, sort of).
Our glorious leaders governing style has been to do as little as possible to avoid elections and let future generations solve things.
and maybe hit on those narco gangs which looks like are behind de Vries assassination
Let's see how it'll work out. I also think it's quite funny that the German meme "Bubatz" has made it into the highest levels of our government.
As the THC percentage has increased, so has my anxiety when I smoke it. If I go out of my way to find lower quality weed, I enjoy it much more.
Seriously, if you smoke a joint of high-grade then you're doing it wrong.
It's as if the only thing available is vodka, but I'd like a beer. Drinking less vodka doesn't make it a beer. They're completely different things.
> but I can't because the shit around these days is so sticky and potent.
And I call BS on this.
I've met people who prefer smoking joints over other smoking methods. Sometimes I like to have a joint, also. Why are we wrong?
It's probably best if you don't do anything that could be potentially harmful.
IIUC, they're just saying that they prefer less potency, but have trouble finding it in the current market.
That doesn't necessarily mean they want only weaker weed to be sold.
edit to reply to below: California already has accurate labeling and is being called out as a problem
An industry that can profit off addiction is being observed drastically increasing the level of an addictive substance in their product. You expect consumers to be perfectly informed. I don't. Thus, it is reasonable to discuss whether an at what threshold a product should be labelled as higher-risk. If the behavior of an industry seems malicious enough and its public health impact adverse enough, regulation is necessary.
I'm arguing in the abstract.
We can buy vape carts, prerolls, candy, drinks, and much more.
Finding the "dose" that works perfectly for you is quite simple and available everywhere.
It's a vast improvement over what was there before.
A small amount of some low THC, high CBD product is pleasant without being intoxicating, and so much easier to come by with everything being tested and labelled.
To me it’s comparable to the single after-work beer I have long enjoyed, vs the high grade stuff being more like… an after-work 5 shots of vodka.
The next day, I bought a one-hit dry herb vaporizer, to be heated with a butane torch. I wanted to feel "high," and the joint had not worked. I used the same approach of waiting twenty to thirty minutes between hits with the vaporizer. In most of these hit attempts, the marijuana ended up combusting instead of vaporizing, as I had heated it up too much. For the first three hits, I did not really feel anything. However, the fourth hit was very rough, burning my throat, and sent me into a coughing fit.
Over a period of about fifteen minutes, the effect began to take hold. I decided to take a shower, and I started freaking out about halfway through, calling out to my wife. I thought I was having a stroke and suddenly felt like I did not have control over my body. I went up to bed and lied down for a long time, where my mind was racing with obsessive, intrusive thoughts. It felt like I was not the person controlling my actions or my thoughts. The feeling that I would be stuck like this forever - that I had lost my mind and entered some state of irreversible psychosis - persisted for at least an hour while I desperately tried to relax myself. After some amount of time, I got out of bed and threw up in the sink and the toilet, then went back to lie down. The entire night, I felt unable to express what I was thinking, but it was filled with the greatest worry that I have ever experienced. (I say this as someone who had actually experienced a couple panic attacks over a decade ago.)
The next day, when I woke up, the effects had subsided, but I was still left with a feeling that I was milliseconds behind the present moment. The worry that I would never feel normal again continued even after the high had diminished. It's a very difficult feeling to explain in hindsight, but after a bit of research, I think I experienced what's called "derealization." This continued into the rest of the day and a bit into the next, and it was a really scary situation for me, since I feel like I always need some amount of control over my mind. (Alcohol has never made me feel this way, though.)
Anyway, the derealization effects were gone after two days, and now, I'm afraid to try marijuana again. I would really like to enjoy the pleasant feelings reported with its use, but I'm worried that my personality is such that I just can't lose control over whatever part of my brain is affected by THC. But I also partly blame the salesperson who sold me something with such a high THC concentration, when I specifically requested something with a low concentration.
Unscientifically I would recommend maybe next time smoking with someone else, and getting a lower % thc, try for a hybrid strain, a mix of Sativa and Indica. If you go on the website of the dispensary it will list the details. Don't over complicate it, just choose something in the 15% range if available. Then just sit down and watch a comedy or something. Have some snacks available. Only take a couple hits and call it a day. The next week try 3 etc. Its cumulative and can sneak up on you.
Either way good luck :)
It just seems like a surprisingly tricky thing for me to figure out. Another recurring thought I had during the experience is that most people don't feel this way after smoking and that there must be something wrong with me. Maybe that's true, I don't know.
20-30 mins between hits is too much, if you don't feel anything after 5, max 10 minutes it won't come. You describe it like that, so it contradicts 25 years of my experience though...
It may be true that weed won't be the best for you, depends. I had this experience with few people, it was all just in their head, too much anxiety and fear but that's enough to ruin any trip, anytime. But I would give it another (different) chance before you give up on it completely.
If you have friend who is doing it and you feel comfortable around them, try it with him/her. They can 'guide' you and calm you down if required. Remember, sugar will take trip down if needed (plus it tastes amazing when high). Or most junk food like hamburgers, pizza etc., also an experience above any Michelin * restaurant when sober.
Yeah, I know thirty minutes is too long between hits, but I was trying to be as conservative as possible about it. That's why I'm kind of upset that, even being as careful as I was, I still ended up freaking out.
I can't think of anyone I'd feel comfortable smoking with. My wife was sober the entire time, thankfully, and helped a lot. She tried to guide me out of the negativity, but I ended up just feeling like I was too afraid to tell her she wasn't really helping. I did read about the sugar thing beforehand, but in the moment, eating was the last thing I was thinking about. A glass of juice might have helped, in hindsight.
Prototypical bad trip.
Unless you are a mutant or were not inhaling at all you were certainly ingesting high amounts of THC and were getting higher while not subjectively realizing it. By the 4th hit you were far gone.
Would be like being annoyed that the world was spinning after you drink a 5th of vodka...
Personally, I prefer the efficiency of the stomach and digestion system myself. It seems much more reliable.
Most likely right about that.
I know its a very individual experience for people so it seems like you have a higher threshold for "feeling high" and you blew right past it before you noticed. Vaping plant matter is typically a more concentrated way to ingest. If anything I'd try combusting small amounts and gauging your reaction that way. However I know people that get anxious or have panicked previously are more inclined to do so again, you get scared of having a similar experience and prime yourself to do just that.
Medical is legal where I live, and I like both (and hybrids) depending on what I'm doing. In the evening, I would stick to Indicas and Indica-dominant hybrids. Since I work, and I never use while working, I use Sativas far less, but I like them for weekends - walks, chores, etc.. It's a bright feeling and more of a head-high, but under the wrong circumstances, that bright feeling turns dark.
Particularly in the evening, Sativas can make you buzzy and unsettled. My gf thought she hated herbs until she tried Indicas. She knows how and when to use now, so she can enjoy Sativas under the right conditions.
Again, this is just my personal experience, but it tracks with my understanding of the strains, and I hope it's helpful to someone.
Can you elaborate? This is very contrary to my experience.
. . . NM I looked it up and see what you're referring to. I'll have to look into it more, because, again, it doesn't sync with my experience.
>Even if it's not most of the strains you buy today are hybrids.
I've never had an ounce of difficulty finding Indicas or Sativas at dispensaries. Maybe there are more hybrids (never took the time to count the options), but if there are quality options available for all three, I don't see how it matters. And, within hybrids, there are Indica-dominant and Sativa-dominant strains.
Finding things they call Indica or Sativa. Afaik given that there's no objective difference between the two you can call it anything you want.
I'm a relatively inexperienced smoker so take the following with grain of salt but this is what I've noticed.
Since it's a plant there's definitely differences seed to seed, soil to soil, season to season, flower to flower, etc.
Weed these days is so potent small differences in flower smoked add up to large differences in THC/CBD/etc consumed. Like you're not carefully weighing out the amount you put in a bowl. It's done by eye and by volume which both have a large margin of error.
Then there's smoking technique. How you hold the lighter, how you inhale, how much water in the bong, and so on all impact how much smoke is produced and consumed.
Then we're talking about perception. How high you are is really how high you perceive you are. And that can be affected by mood, tiredness, what activity you do after smoking, and so on.
In my experience same flower, same technique, same amount, etc can lead to wildly disparate outcomes. Most of the time it's about the same. But every so often I find myself blasted to the moon or not really feeling much.
But all that said, Sommeliers can repeatedly recognize specific vintages where I can mostly just recognize broad categories. Maybe there's weed sommeliers out there that can do the same.
The trick is to educate consumers. And yes today's pot is way stronger than what people used to smoke back in the 80s, but people also don't smoke a handful of joints but one or two... for me, that argument is a bit of a scapegoat.
[Edited to remove a badly-worded piece of anecdata that probably wasn't pertinent].
Anyways, I'm asking because I unfortunately live in a state where it's still illegal.
It was very typical to see older folks and very light smokers to request the smaller dosages. They also seemed to trend towards vapes in the younger lighter smokers because the dosage can be fairly small.
They don't show up in dispensaries much, because why go through all the hassle to meet regulations on a product which doesn't have to meet those regulations, unless they're being sold at a dispensary?
The only solution I have found is to buy gummies and cut them up into smaller doses. I’ve found a local company that does a hybrid (sativa/indica) gummy and I vastly prefer them to the unspecified gummies which tend to be stronger than I am looking for.
I’m tempted to get seeds for a low THC strain but I’m not such a connoisseur as to make that a priority.
Here is a hemp seller that sells strains that don't have enough THC to be classified as cannabis: https://holycityfarms.com/product-category/flower/
Even before my state legalized, I hadn't run into anything besides high grade strains in years. I imagine it would be really hard to find low quality weed anywhere in the US at this point.
Depends on the state, even among those where weed is legal. WA has a pretty terrible duality - buying is very easy, and i like how that part was handled. Growing your own recreationally (i.e., not as a registered producer/manufacturer)? Not allowed at all, unless you are a medical user, and you are limited to only 4 plants.
Shortly after it became legal (speaking for WA only here), it felt like every manufacturer chased the highest THC first.
Many years after, we now have the other side gaining a large presence. All sorts of things from high thc to 50/50 blend thc/cbd to high cbd/almost no thc concentrates. I can confirm that it isn't just a marketing bs, tried one of those low thc/high cbd carts before, and it didnt give me the feeling of high almost at all, even after about 10 hits (normally, 1-2 hits of a typical thc cart is plenty enough for me to feel it strongly and be done).
Low thc stuff is getting very high presence/prevalence among users and in advertising as well, it isnt reserved for the backshelf as "oh yeah, if regular stuff is too strong for you, we got a shelf in the back just for lighter stuff." It is sold and presented (in marketing and among customers) equivalently to how beers are sold in terms of varying percentages. Some like 4-5% alcohol, some like 7-8%, others prefer imperial versions (typically 9-11%), etc, but there is no "this is the one type of beer for everyone, the rest is just weaker/stronger alternatives."
However, I've only noticed this type of a push for promotion and popularity gain of less-thc-strong oils at dispensaries start gaining momentum only since around 2019. However, that area has been growing heavily and feels larger than ever now, so I can only see it gaining more footing in the future.
I can see that being used by sellers as a marketing claim for health benefits in a not so distant future?
Interesting read on the subject: https://dutch-passion.com/en/blog/what-are-cannabis-landrace....
> without any clear guidelines or regulations from government officials, the cannabis industry has taken a page from the tobacco and alcohol industries’ play book and developed strains of marijuana and concentrated marijuana products with much higher concentrations of THC, the psychoactive component that causes addiction. The more potent a drug is, the stronger the possibility of addiction and the more likely the person will continue to purchase and use the product.
Doesn't seem like there's any incentive to reduce potency.
Nothing in your article tackles my main point though?
> the cannabis industry has taken a page from the tobacco and alcohol industries’ play book
As a slightly off-topic aside: tobacco I'm less familiar with (I wasn't aware of efforts by the industry to grow strains of the plants with higher nicotine content but it seems unsurprising), but including alcohol here is bizarre. Alcohol isn't naturally occurring in harvested produce - it's an output from a process. And even then, maybe they're talking about distillation, but that process predates the industrial revolution by 100s maybe 1000s of years.
Tbh this throwaway statement kinda makes me question the article...
Ethanol is naturally occurring.
That said, I agree that including alcohol here is bizarre. As far as I can tell there has never been a monotonic increase in ABV; instead, there is a large selection ranging from high alcohol content to even alcohol-free (which is so unpopular in the US as to be barely worth mentioning, but quite popular in Germany, and I'm now seeing large and even regional breweries in the US produce AF versions of their most popular beers).
> Unless they're talking about distillation
Most alcoholic beverages are made through some sort of distillation process, so I'm not sure what difference you're alluding to here.
Most alcoholic beverages (beers, wines) are not distilled - distillation is typically only used to take a drink above the 20-30% ABV mark (spirit / liquor).
How do you define “most”? - but I’m pretty sure non-distilled/non-fortified alcoholic beverages (wine/beer/etc) make up more of the alcoholic beverage market (whether in litres or dollars) than distilled/fortified beverages. I think they also are a lot more if you were to count SKUs (number of varieties of non-fortified wines/beers/etc > spirits/liqueurs/fortified wines/etc)
My brain organizes things as "beer, wine, and alcohol (aka spirits)" as opposed to "alcohol, including beer and wine". And an "alcoholic beverage" is just either a spirit alone or a spirit mixed with something.
Probably because that's how my state organizes the stores (with wine/alcohol in separate stores from beer, so if you say "we need to buy beer" that means going to a different place than "we need to by alcohol").
(FWIW I'm a native US English speaker.)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liqueur
> a usually sweetened alcoholic liquor (such as brandy) flavored with fruit, spices, nuts, herbs, or seeds
vs liquor
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liquor
> a usually distilled rather than fermented alcoholic beverage
see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amaretto
> an almond-flavored liqueur
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limoncello
> Limoncello (Italian pronunciation: [limonˈtʃɛlːo]) is an Italian lemon liqueur mainly produced in Southern Italy
That's... decidedly not true.
> That's... decidedly not true.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95DPkPW5_PE [link to video of animals becoming intoxicated on rotting fruit]
I'm confused. Perhaps you read this as "isn't"?
Fermentation is a natural process. Alcohol naturally occurs in overripe fruits. Humans first discovered it by accident - fruit juices or grain-water mixtures left out would become alcoholic. In fact, non-fresh non-alcoholic fruit juice only became a product in modern times, because it was only in the modern period we developed the technology to stop the natural process of fermentation.
That said, natural fermentation (without distillation) can only get you up to 18% ABV - beyond that, it poisons the yeast and they stop producing alcohol. To go higher you need distillation/fortification.
This was impossible before with just cigarettes [1], which only had a 'lite' option which I doubt had any less nicotine. The only option was to quit. Weening off via 5mg is way easier.
[1] Besides maybe the nicotine gum which is even grosser
Picking a salt liquid at random, this one lets you go down to 1mg, since they probably add the nicotine to a 0mg product:
https://www.dashvapes.com/products/e-juice/24/grappleberry+i...
Disposables are usually 5% salts over here, afaik.
Perhaps there's been resistance to talking about this much because it's a new freedom and consumers are afraid too much criticism could lead to that freedom being yanked back away. However, I have noticed more conversation about finding the right level of CBD... so I think your instinct may not be far off.
I think national regulation around standard strength, doses, labeling, etc. could help here in a way that legalization (or decriminalization) at a smaller level can't.
Not sure what form you buy your weed in, but typically reducing the dose is not as straightforward as it would be with, e.g. a powdered or liquid product.
> national regulation [...] could help here in a way that legalization [...] can't.
I'm not sure I follow - are you proposing regulation in addition to legalization, or instead of? I don't really understand how the latter would work (or why they would/should be mutually exclusive) but maybe I'm just misinterpreting?
I moved to coastal state where it was legal. Now it's all hydroponically grown, all female and all seedless. I was a daily user for about 12 years and had to completely stop using it. It would always help my stomach if I had stomach problems, but eventually I had stomach problems daily and the only fix was more weed. It turns out the weed was the cause of and solution to all my problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_hyperemesis_syndro...
I don't like eating due to very long ramp up and it last for too long for casual evening, it may be great summer weekend festival item.
What I want to say - even most potent oil vapes regardless of sativa/indica/cbd mix, it was just about dosage. 1 hit was a pleasant light trip, 2 was a nice strong one, 3 really strong but manageable for simple stuff. I once had 6 draws while walking in village & forest - I really went far away form this reality, hypnotizing street lights, dancing on empty streets. Couldn't trust myself which normally never ever happens on weed. It ended up OK somehow but oh boy beware.
If one doesn't have any self control, it may cause issue - till it hits you fully (which is cca 5 mins with vape oil, unlike ie joint/pipe which is almost immediate), you may have already taken too much. But that would be the problem with hard alcohol too, there its more like 30 mins and we all have seen enough shitfaced folks in our lives who took too many shots too fast.
So education, explanation - potency, indica/sativa mixing, literally learning consumption of cannabis and products. Its not complex but it ain't primitive linear alcohol 'high' (or more like low) regardless of type of drink.
I still consider oil vapes the best product for me, chirurgically precise amount of high, very convenient, and very reproducible once you are familiar with given strain.
Yeah, but at least their body will jolt them into stopping. The absolute worst vommiting I had in my life was thanks to alcohol. Often after a night of getting wasted I don't want to touch alcohol again for a while.
I've tried to quit cannabis several times now, but usually break down after a week or so when the night sweats and nightmares set in. I've been able to mostly get things under control by avoiding all concentrates and daily doses of nortryptiline and protonix, but quitting entirely is turning out to be really hard for me.
Concentrates are something I treat myself to just a few times a year. Everything in moderation… including the occasional excess.
I've always liked that quote as I have seen it over and over again in people I know. Those that can use and moderate to just a recreational use vs committing to a full on daily use (addiction by most acceptable use) is very small. I love to partake when I have the time and lack of responsibilities requiring all of my faculties. But when I've tried the daily use and watched my capabilities diminish has shown me that I'm not fully functional with that daily use so I just keep it in the recreational realm. From my 100% unschooled medical perspective, those that think they are 100% with daily use are just lying to themselves.
I go through intentional withdrawal every N months to reduce my tolerance. I tend to keep the dose as low as possible. Sometimes I fail, sometimes I do not. I might buy that box that has a lock with a timer on it or something. ^^
I do not consider myself a junkie just because I am dependent on it, similarly how people are not junkies for depending on beta-blockers. They need it, and I need it too. It just happens to be something some people tend to abuse. Well, I do not wish to suffer because of them. Again, I do not get high, I do not get any of those feelings that would make me crave it. Many people might, but many people do not have the same medical condition as I do, I guess.
As I said, I am not "100% with daily use". I sometimes fail at controlling the dose, because sometimes my issues are worse, but... I wish I did not have to depend on it. It fucking sucks. I do not want to depend on it, but I have tried every psychiatric medications there is during my years... None of them helped one bit. I had no idea that what I am taking would work either, I stumbled upon it by accident. Again, I wish I did not need this, but I am afraid I will die taking it unless they find a proper treatment or cure for what I have. But yeah... it sucks. I could talk about it more, like how I cannot even get out of bed and do my damn job without it and such, but welp.
The other thing you can do is switch to concentrates. This also makes it easier to quit because you know how much you're taking in so you can slowly taper down.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/well/mind/teens-thc-canna...
See also:
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/21665-cannabi...
Reduce daily intake by X% every week. If a given step down ends up being too painful you just go back to the previous one for another week and then try a smaller step next time. Optimum X varies by drug but I’m sure there are recommendations specific for cannabis out there.
It sounds like you have the desire to make a change, with persistence and the right technique you can definitely make it happen.
If you read their comment a little closer, you will see that they do not.
>I have never been addicted to anything so its hard for me to relate
If you have no experience, why are you giving advice?
It is incredibly frustrating that every single time I've shared the situation in, some jerk chimes in with their preconceptions, often without even reading the information put in front of them.
For instance my last trip to the E.R was the first in a few months. During triage the nurse confirms their existing records that Droperidol is the only medication I'm known to have a negative reaction to -- something that is documented, because multiple times in the same E.R, Droperidol has caused every muscle in my body to go twitchy. My chart indicates the Ativan/Reglan/Pepcid cocktail consistently works. P.A. comes into the room, first thing he asks is why I'm still smoking cannabis. He follows that up with orders for fluids and... Droperidol. Tells me he doesn't want to go the Ativan route because it can be habit forming and I'm already an addict. I spend the next couple hours twitching in addition to puking, until shift change, when the doctor who took over finally hit me with the right set of meds.
And yes, I've been trying to get the mental health assistance I need. Unfortunately it is spectacularly difficult to find help unless you're either rich or destitute.
So I buy from people that have been doing it for decades and smoke their own stuff as QC.
If it’s too strong smoke less, but clean cannabis is the solution for that.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americas-pot-labs-have-...
https://www.leafly.com/news/strains-products/lab-shopping-th...
I also don’t understand this argument because you can just take 1 hit and be done. No one is forcing you to finish a whole joint. Should liquor be outlawed because it is stronger than beer?
Better to have a much wider variety of potencies available, like we have with alcohol. Especially for the casual users who have been ignored by the market because traditional dealers get most of their money from heavy users, and heavy users want the chronic.
Use a good vaporizer or a cheap glass pipe.
"Use a good vaporizer or a cheap glass pipe."
You do realize that a lot of people don't really know how to use those devices, right?
Why anyone would argue against more variety of weed with better labelling is way beyond my comprehension.
It does not take a rocket scientists to use those devices, but if the average people is really that dumb, then we should seriously take control of their lives if we want them to be contributing to society (because that's what seems to matter the most, right?).
Plus I doubt that many, THAT dumb people who have not touched weed would start doing it out of nowhere.
You: HELL NO
WTF, really?
Not that it matters, recreational stores solve this problem entirely.
I am in agreement with that. If they voluntarily pick the higher potency for their first time, let them experience how shitty it can be.
I've sometimes wondered if legalizing and/or regulating edibles and smoked products separately should be done with THC. No one expects alcohol and tobacco to follow the same rules. It could prevent some issues for casual users.
To be fair, in regions that have legalized it the dispensaries seem to have voluntarily organized around the idea naturally anyway: dispensaries I've been to generally are good at explaining the relative safety of edibles to potential casual users and edibles seem to make up a larger portion of their business in general.
The increased THC concentration compared to other psychoactive chemicals seems to produce more paranoia and other negative effects in some people, so it's not just a strength issue. The effect is different if the proportion of THC to CBD increases.
It's also easier to get more THC than you intended if you're consuming stronger stuff.
> Should liquor be outlawed because it is stronger than beer?
If spirits are legal then people should at least have the choice of drinking beer.
And for what it’s worth, you can’t get Everclear in my state.
Can you imagine how many problems would be solved if people could stop after 1? But you are fighting evolution, and the compulsion for more is extremely strong in myriad areas.
Also to people with higher tolerance a joint IS like a beer. THC tolerance builds slowly but lasts a very long time unlike alcohol (anecdotally).
This is an opinion piece written by a Psychiatrist. Hardly conclusive or convincing. Also focuses on teen use so not sure it has much relevance for the vast majority of users in Legal jurisdictions.
I was able to start buying lower-potency weed in California as soon as recreational stores became established. Now, I'm waiting around for the same in NY and buying weed that is way too strong in the meantime. A joint as 10-15% THC with some CBD is an entirely different experience than the 25% and up THC that most dealers sell (and that's usually all they sell).
The black market is alive and well in the U.S. where it is legal.
For things that are NOT in the process of being banned entirely, sin taxes may do more harm than good.
Standardization is a problem with decriminalized and illegal drugs.
For me the difference of these strains to some of the modern high THC + low CBD ones is comparable to drinking a good glass of wine versus chugging down some highly potent moonshine.
Some moderns strains are completely overbred and dangerous to some people in my experience.(2)
Knowing the Germans, I‘m optimistic, they‘ll regulate it properly, so that everything you will be able to buy legally, should be quite safe.
1) https://greatist.com/health/high-cbd-low-thc#_noHeaderPrefix...
2) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_hyperemesis_synd...
There's talk of introducing legislation to restrict quantities (government has plenty of securicrat control freaks), but since that violates the very principles which underpinned the Constitutional Court's overturning the legislation that made weed illegal in the first place, I can't see it going very far.
I have no reason to trust the SPD that they will deliver on this, they are the infamous poster child for betrayal. They are the kind of party that would sell their entire voting base if it served the acting politicians individual careers.
If they will do it, then it will be leveraged to the max, right before the next critical election.
We have elections in Bavaria and Hessen in 2023, the FDP will need at least something to show off, and cannabis is the easiest thing to pass, particularly as the Greens and parts of the SPD have long fought for it.
Point being: if the FDP is the reason to have faith in this, I'm not feeling much more confident than before.
they also won a number of sympathizers ... and "reasonable measures" - what a funny moment to write that nonsense.
LOL, they lost massively in all elections since the Bundestagswahl - mostly because of their disastrous performance during covid, with NRW's education minister Gebauer being the most obvious example. They may have gained some people from the AfD, but lost so much more instead.
Basically the FDP is now learning the hard way what Söder's CSU learned after the clusterfuck in the 2018 Bavarian elections: copying the far-right and ultra-libertarian demands may earn you some votes from there, but alienate so much more of the moderate vote that it can even threaten your existence.
Germany is not the US - ultra-libertarian attitudes may give you applause from Twitter crowds but not from voters.
> and "reasonable measures" - what a funny moment to write that nonsense.
The FDP vetoed anything to reasonably deal with the pandemic - they were the reason tests were cut down, they are even opposed to mask mandates, and forget about a vaccination mandate.
From my point of view, this makes them pure evil, much more so than the other parties. Yes, all the parties play the power game, but not all of them have the insane level of audacity that the SPD demonstrates again and again, in every election since I'm old enough to pay attention.
In their defense: They are the lesser evil. Which seems to basically be all that they run on nowadays (it's how Scholz became chancellor).
Yes I agree that the socialists lift themself way higher that they should. I think the age of their politics and voters is an effect of inheritance over decades. But it's still not a thing only the socialists have. The right wing sort of has the same. Specially the christians. I wouldn't even say it's a very evil thing. There are young people that are interested in politics, that's good and important. But it's by far not the most of them. I agree that it's not very smart to pretend to be a youngster or doing politics for the future generations while not even asking them what they want and need or stepping aside to let them fix their problems on their own.
And honestly Scholz is very suspect and unsympathetic to me. He seemed wrong when he was major of hamburg and still I don't trust him a dime. He literally is the result of being the least garbage. At least in what the public can see. But still I don't see how the others are much different from fooling the people. The christians are corrupt, afd is a nazi party based on denial. The "democrats" only care about their own wealth. Green has internal issues with their concurring members and the deep red just burried themselves over the last years and is in huge inner conflicts as well.
None of them has the motivation or will to change. It's just about getting the votes to talk bad about others and don't change a shit. Would be good to do a 80% flush. Get new and young politicians in the parliament and keep a fifth of the old ones to show the new ones around and explain how some stuff works.
Source?
I'm not sure if you have noticed it but there where elections last year and the new coalition that formed has the legalization of cannabis as one of its official goals. Your "credible sources" might have been right a few years ago, but the political landscape has changed.
> This is supported by the fact that "Legalisierung" is not part of the political language wrt topic
Of course it is. The expert consolidation which is part of the creation of new law has just concluded. Now the federal ministry of health will create a draft law and publish it by the end of the year.
That is what a friend of mine working in the Bundestag said.
Source: am German, am pissed off beyond belief about a lot of things in politics, especially the lack of will to just move forward and do something instead of debating all day.
That said, I am rooting for Germany. It is a relatively young nation overall, and has so many things going for it. I think it has potential to become the biggest European superpower over the next 20 years
Is there a kind of fetish among germans to demonise east europe? Perhaps the recovery process after 45 years of communism is slow and takes time. And perhaps east europeans arent as inferior are a certain german ideology claims they are? Anyway pathetic analogy.
I don't know where you are from Germany but cannabis is pretty much decriminalized in Berlin already for quite some time. People buy/smoke at the streets and police does not mind.
TIL ;)
But cannabis, wrong hair style+ couple younger people in car= did u smoke? "No "well we will make sure of that ourself"
friend of mine lost his drivers license in berlin because he drove A FKN BIKE under influence of alcohol (he was still quite in control and did nothing wrong).
To be honest, just the very first statistics I could find on the topic, I didn't put any effort in looking it up at all: https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/753/e... says the following
> In the 2012 EMCDDA Annual report, it is conservatively estimated that cannabis has been used at least once (lifetime prevalence) by around 80.5 million Europeans: almost one in four of all 15- to 64-year-olds.
This matches my personal experience (currently mid 30s in Germany) a lot closer, unless politicans are vastly more likely to smoke pot (or pot smokers vastly more likely to go into politics) I have a hard time imagining your estimate is even close to true.
there are medications better than cannabis for anxiety and depression. But no one talks about them. They're on the same level as alcohol and weed when it comes to addiction potential and harm. Just make them legal ffs.
I'm really happy I can get them from pharmacies in my country because they're not on a restricted prescription so they just give them to you if you pinky promise that you have/had a prescription. That said, it's technically illegal.
And 2: holy shit eastern European states are dumb. They are missing out on billions in sales and tourism by not legalizing cannabis alone. And now western states will legalize it and reap all the benefits. Watch how eastern states just keep complaining about the brain drain, workforce drain, money problems while doing nothing effective to combat it. Just cheap places to build factories and buy homes for retirement. Great job.
Could you maybe name them? Would be awesome :)
But eh, whatever, you're responsible for yourself.
For me, gabapentinoids and gabaergics work great. Pregabalin, Gabapentin, Sodium Oxybate are what I have experimented with and found to be good.
Currently on Pregabalin 2x150mg morning+evening. Each dose lasts 6-7 hours (and lingers for much longer, 24-48 hours). I'd recommend starting with 75mg, only on empty stomach. Effects start after 1-2 hours, if you don't feel anything, up the dose. Don't take too much, I tried 300-450mg in one dose, was too stupefying. Quitting is easy by tapering down over a week. May have 1-2 days of bad sleep or insomnia. Minimized anxiety, suicidal thoughts gone, and it even mixes well with most stimulants (for ADHD).
Pretty much the same for Gabapentin, which was great, better than pregabalin (more energy and creativity), until I quit it for ~6 months and now I have some sort of permanent tolerance. It's strange.
Sodium Oxybate (aka GHB!) is also great, easier to get but dosing is difficult, it's short lasting and has a big impact on sleep (forced me into biphasic sleep, which is actually how narcoleptics take it), can't fall asleep without it, but it's great quality sleep after ~3 weeks). Big danger of addiction, even though quitting is easy by tapering down over a week. Basically you need more than 12 hours between after the last dose. Or if you fall into a 24/7 trap (taking it every 1-3 hours), lower the dosage every day. Much harder than it sounds so just never take it more than 3-4 times a day and never more than 3-4 grams at a time.
Would not recommend it unless you're really good at self-restraint and/or quitting drugs. Quitting an a-pvp binge was easier than sodium oxybate.
There's also benzodiazepines and phenibut that I stay clear of (they act partially or fully on GABA-A, way more dangerous/addictive than those that act on GABA-B), and baclofen that I haven't tried due to unavailability.
They all have quite different effects and you need to find a right dosage/schedule. Gotta see what works best for you.
To put it in simple terms, they're mostly like alcohol without the negative effects. I have to say I've been a long time functional alcoholic (over a decade of near daily use), so either my brain craves something for GABA receptors or I've screwed it up and now this stuff works.
Still, any of them are less stupefying than cannabis (and at higher dosages close to it in relaxation effects) and have none of the occasional negative effects like paranoia.
Also, I use tizanidine to knock myself to sleep when quitting various stuff.
But holy shit, please for the love of everything learn to use medication responsibly, learn to quit them and not fall into abuse, because withdrawal can be ugly.
Not sure if this is a post-Soviet slingshot effect or if it never went away even under Stalinism. But old "Christian" morality seems to be stronger there, and the separation between church and state not as really as much of a thing as in the west.
What about church ? Last time I checked church was very much against this, and is a far larger political influence than those you mentioned. I could be wrong - but in my peer group the first people I would see vote against weed would be the religious.
As an American, we are well familiar with Big Pharma but the wine lobby? Is that really a thing in Europe? How influential are they around these kinds of policy?
Edit: Sorry for the barrage of questions, you've really piqued my interest.
Fun fact: one hundred years ago the wine lobby successfully killed absinthe using bogus scientific claims, and today Pernod Ricard are on their side of the lobbying.
"Wine growing makes up 15% of France's agricultural revenues while accounting for only 3% of the land area used."
"France consumes over 30 million hectoliters of wine (14% of global output) every year, making it one of the world’s largest consumers alongside the United States and Italy. The average French person consumes 48 liters of wine a year. (larvf.com)"
Source: https://www.businessfrance.fr/Media/Default/PROCOM/Kits/Agro...
Germany:
"When calculated per German citizen, this corresponds to an average consumption of still and sparkling wines of 23.4 liters annually per person. Of this wine, 8.7 liters are domestic still wines, 11.4 liters are foreign still wines and 3.3 liters are sparkling wines."
Source: https://blog.drinktec.com/wine/german-wine-consumption-and-p...
It's hundreds of thousands of hectares of land and a massive employer. Unlike other agriculture products, the margins on wine are very high.
More likely law enforcement.
The criminalization of drugs provides an endless supply of criminals of various levels (from the drug production/distribution itself to weapons and violence used to defend the illegal operation) and thus generates endless amounts of work for all kinds of people involved in law enforcement, from police to prisons to various subcontractors providing goods/services used by the aforementioned entities.
Most of those are not criminals because they want to hurt people or break the law on purpose and thus will no longer be criminals when drugs are legalized (instead of switching to another crime to remain a criminal). Thus, the second it's legalized, the "demand" for law enforcement services drops dramatically, and the crimes that do remain will require more effort to solve than your typical drug case.
I was completely sober 20 years ago and never thought that.
He used to be a local weed dealer and while he knew what he was getting into and was consciously breaking the law at the time, after his first arrest a few years ago he stopped and got a regular job.
He only got involved with the court again because one acquaintance of his was charged with drug dealing and figured he could lessen his sentence by giving the authorities someone else to prosecute.
All in all a person who could otherwise continue to be a productive member of society has to spend two years in prison now.
I now live in a recreationally legal state, the irony is not lost on me.
Many of them are truly good people.
No they aren't. Only 20% of inmates are in jail for drug offenses and only a tiny fraction (if there's even one) is on a life time sentence for dealing weed.
If prison hasn't fucked them up. I really hope these people will find their way in society if there's ever a pardon, because it might be really had to adapt to normal life, even if you ended up in jail for something as stupidly innocuous as smoking weed.
Just not at all true.
Weed was criminalized as a mechanism for white people to control black people, because weed was a Mexican and black person drug when those laws were enacted. It's all in the arguments in favor of the criminalization laws when they were passed.
nothing to do with the Protestant Work Ethic.
Sorry if the phrase "black person" is offensive, none is meant.
Any sane person knows that people should decide how much division of labor they want for themselves.
As far as I was aware, the criminalization of weed was related to hemp being a competitor to the wood/paper industry.
The war on drugs was purely designed to target hippies and people of color [1]. The sooner it is gone on all levels, the better.
[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-...
> "because it did not fit the narrative style focused on putting the readers in the middle of the backroom discussions themselves, without input from the author."
The worst lie I've ever heard. The quote is gold for a backroom discussion.
Then Ehrlichman dies, and the quote comes out more than a decade later, when he can't dispute it; with zero corroboration except Baum, and no recording! (No recording for a book background interview of an influential US political actor?)
The quote is reddit-catnip but only spreads because of low-integrity operators in the media. Golden rule: don't put words in people's mouths after they're dead.
Much easier than growing cannabis, actually.
The curing process is a bit of work, but for cigarette (as opposed to pipe or cigar) quality tobacco not so hard.
Canada: >Growing cannabis (either growing their own or having it grown for them by someone else) was a supply-source for 14.2% of consumers in 2020
I can't find stats on tobacco users who grow their own supply for Canada because I suspect it's vanishingly small next to that 14.2%
The anti-legalization thought is simply: Cigarettes and alcohol are already bad enough, let's not add a third substance!
(Note: Personally, I actually support weed legalisation, because it eliminates black markets and other problems that illegality brings. But that's a whole other, more nuanced argument. See the frontpage thread about steelmanning...)
This is absolutely NOT the argument against legalization anywhere that I've seen. It's almost universally a claim that MJ is uniquely dangerous and should be kept illegal for that reason.
Which is a stupid thought given that even when completely banned and carrying harsh penalties people still partake in drug usage. Draconian laws may diminish the ratio of users but they are still there, and draconian laws only make those people become pariahs in their societies, pushing them into deeper holes.
Singapore, Japan, Sweden, Philippines, etc. still have drugs and users, no matter how draconian prohibition is...
Personally I've seen weed addiction in close friends and family and it's not pretty. It's slowly poisoning yourself while your life stagnates or falls apart. But they're convinced they're not addicted as you can't get addicted to weed.
Habit forming, yes. Physically addictive? No.
It's common sense that your body will physically adapt to most substances consumed regularly. Most of the time that means tolerance and subsequent withdrawal when its removed, which is caused by some physical process. Weed isn't magic.
If you think about it for a few seconds, you'll see why. You didn't because it undermines your argument, since the UK has mostly smoked hash historically.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/16/skunk-cannab...
'Smoking powerful skunk cannabis triples the risk of suffering a serious psychotic episode, scientists have found.'
'Those who reported smoking milder forms of the drug, such as hash, did not appear to be at increased risk, for instance. Murray said that, in line with this finding, he recommends hash to patients who are struggling to give up smoking altogether.'
It's illegal to produce weed with the intention to sell, but legal to sell. At the same time it's illegal to have a large inventory. So criminals make large amounts of cash by illegally growing weed. And cops have to waste their time dealing with these guys.
Eventually these guys grow up and start with the more profitable stuff such as cocaine & mdma. Next step is to start ripping off other criminals, threatening local businessmen who dont want to hide your cocaine in their fruit imports...
Maybe they don't "waste" their time, and instead enjoy job security and an endless supply of easy crimes to solve?
I suspect law enforcement is a big reason why drug legalization is hard.
I do not consume cannabis, but here in BC, it has never been difficult to obtain. The difference with legalization is that it’s now just a non-issue. Not sketchy. Not dangerous. It’s just part of the fabric of daily life.
Governments like Germany should focus on maximizing access through private distribution much as is the case for alcohol and tobacco. Trying to control the retail end too much will result in a failure.
This strikes me as an odd claim. Each province has its own approach, and the provinces are large. Wouldn’t having varying approaches among different large regions be perfect for drawing lessons?
Some useful comparisons can indeed be drawn. Quebec launched with a very restrictive distribution model. BC was quite liberal. The latter province has fared much better in terms of squeezing out profits for organized crime. There are virtually no unauthorized cannabis shops in the province and very little black market activity relative to pre-legalization.
Keep distribution straightforward and analogous to how tobacco and alcohol are sold, and keep taxes on cannabis low to cut out profits for the black market.
If their goal is regulation, I think they will need to chill a little on the taxes.
In recent years, however, crappy cannabis adulterated with synthetic cannaboids have become pervasive--they're inferior to the real stuff, addictive, and deeply connected with organized crime. Legalization will likely result in a safer supply for everyone, while also removing a huge money source for criminals.
It's obvious how it's going to be legal in Berlin, I'm just wondering how it's going to look like in other places of Germany...
This is double the street cost of the product. The black market will thrive.
The criminal activities and gang wars linked to cannabis trafficking in France are huge. It's a shame that France never took action either on legalisation or on crime...
I am not sure that whatever Germany does will have much impact in France, though.
It is a cat and mouse game, where the police only manages to catch kids, and the sell spot just spawns at another appartment-building.
IMO, the french government is blind to think it can fight cannabis traffic by trying to stop the ilegal offer. France is number one consumer of cannabis in europe, so the demand will always create another traffic, unless you counteract with legal, and regulated offer.
> It is a cat and mouse game, where the police only manages to catch kids
They only 'manage' to catch what they want to catch considering government's policy over several decades... If they actually wanted to end this it would be ended in under a month. That's one of the big problems in France: Many of those neighbourhoods and criminal activities have been left to fester for decades without anything being actually done, so things just keep getting worse, politicians keep being 'shocked' without doing anything, and round we go.
Edit: UK, I can't speak for the US
I want r e c r e a t i o n a l like California, in Europe I don't want like 3 novelty shops in Amsterdam, I want the commercial Apple-store-of-weed style seen in California, I also agree with more tiers on THC amount and studies instead of anecdotes. I want some actual consumer protection and options based on science and letting consumers make more informed choices. The US has no adequate studies yet like clinical trials and that's pretty pathetic as the states are unequipped to do this at the standard the FDA does. Other countries shouldn't have that dilemma.
It's much easier to just pop a candy in my mouth than to pack up a bong or vape. (And there's no smell to deal with, which is useful with children around.)
The dosage control is significantly easier than smoking. Where I live, the amounts of psychoactive chemicals per dose are printed on the packaging.
Just make sure you start with one (or a half) dose, and wait 2-3 hours before you take any more.
Also, if you want a "smoking" experience, without the smoke, vaping does come close. FYI: With vaping it's super-easy to get an overwhelming dose, so be careful.
As much as I tend to believe that low amounts can have benefits, both functional and social, what I see from this trend of heavy use of high potency material is clearly not going that way.
Has there ever been a successful civilization that had incorporated use of cannabis in general society? I am not talking about some priestly caste using it for tripping, divining, or making up scripture, I mean like the use of alcohol which actually apparently was a key factor in emergence of urban civilizations.
Related question is: do we know of any civilization that collapsed after embracing cannabis?
California?
Hopefully this will allow the police to do something about crime which is becoming a huge issue in Europe (probably thanks to lockdowns, recession, uncontrolled immigration).
I hope it catches on everywhere else but I'm definitely not going to buy their overpriced and overtaxed products - I'll just buy seeds and grow it for personal use.
Definitely not everywhere in Europe - the PKS in germany shows declining levels of crime (+) as well as for violent crimes (++) since 2017 until 2021. Now, this statistics need to be read carefully since they track what‘s been _reported_ to the police with no further investigation, so there are various statistical effects to take into account when reading them (+++), but they do provide a good idea of the overall trend. If crime were becoming a huge issue in germany, one would expect an uptick in reported crimes, but that‘s not visible anywhere in the stats.
(+) https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Publikationen/Pol... (++) https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Publikationen/Pol... (+++) for example, it‘s much more likely that immigrants get reported after a street/bar fight than native Germans. Another example is that rape and sexual harassment are underreported, but the willingness to report is rising, so it‘s currently not exactly clear what produces the rise in the stats.
Personally, I don't have anything against it being ingested in other forms: such as "magic" brownies or vaping that don't affect other people around you.
Eh? No, that's not generally the major concern about passive smoking; not sure where you got that from.
I can testify that as a child with a habitual smoker in the house, of ordinary cigarettes, it was kinda terrible. All our clothes would smell of tabacco, and teachers at school were convinced me and my brother are smokers.
after being tortured by cigarette smoke for a decate, we find them repulsive and have never touched them.
so it runs contrary to my experience, and i never heard of anyone aquiring addiction through 2nd hand smoking, but it can be damaging to the wholw familt.
The American lobby strikes again, they now control the whole industry and let their domestic market grow for years, they are ready to use EU as their market, yet again
On top of making their population even more dumb
What a sad and funest faith for Europe