Legalizing Pot In CO Results After 6 Months

1600vw said:
Please show where you heard about this 70 yr old dieing from his pot use. This would be news to me that someone has died from the use of this. Or that someone cost our health care system money for using it because of a disease the use of this caused.

What disease would this be?

Tony
Click to expand...

Please read the first sentence of the second para again.
 
There is no reason to believe that long term the inhalation of fine particulate matter from the burning of a hemp/tobacco mix is any less harmful than the inhalation of fine particulate matter from tobacco alone. Just like the producers of cigarettes before them, the industrial producers of cannabis will fight hard to suppress that information.
 
docmirror said:
I could agree with you, and a a few others on the limits of tax and regs but for one thing; The US is so deeply invested in and controlling health care that the cost of treating long-term pot use will eventually wind up in the hands of the public to pay.

I don't have any stats to back it up, and I don't want to google for it, but I think it's safe to say that the health costs of extended pot use are going to be quite high, and there's no way that regular pot users are paying enough in premiums(if they even have insurance) to cover their long term care. So - just like alcoholics, and seriously obese people this will be one more population segment that will be taking far more out of the health budget than they ever put in.

If the US would let health insurance work the way insurance is supposed to work, we wouldn't have any trouble. But - the bleeding heart, progressive cradle-to-grave pols just can't stand to see a 70YO pot smoker for 50 years die from their disease. They just gotta intervene, and they do so with the fed treasury, which of course is theirs to spend anyway they see fit.

In a rather bastardized fashion, the national healthcare plan would work. The idea of insurance is risk spread across a large population. If everyone in the US were paying into the system, and only a small percent were getting sick from pot smoking in their old age, then we would all be ok. But - just the opposite is happening. A small subset of the US population is paying in, and a very large subset of the population is going to require health care money in the coming years. If I were an actuarial it would prolly make me crazy to see the ratios.
Click to expand...

I think your image of a pot smoker is seriously skewed toward the stereotypical burnout living on a dirty mattress in a skid-row crash pad.

Although there are such burnouts, most pot smokers are ordinary people, from all walks and stations of life, the vast majority of whom smoke less than daily, and who seem to suffer few health effects from doing so. I know more than a few regular pot smokers in their 60's and 70's, and a few in their 80's, who started using when they were in their teens or 20's, who are now retired from quite successful careers, and who are in excellent health.

Tobacco cigarettes are far more harmful to health than marijuana. How much of this is because of the relative toxicity of the products versus the much smaller amounts of marijuana typically used is up for grabs, but the latter probably has more to do with the relative health of pot smokers: A typical cigarette smoker inhales more smoke in a week than a typical marijuana smoker does in in a year.

Whatever the theoretical case, there simply aren't a whole lot of real-world cases of "marijuana-related disease," especially considering that in the 50+ age group, marijuana smokers probably outnumber cigarette smokers by at least a two-to-one ratio.

-Rich
 
Last edited:
Pot is one of, if not the most harmless drug known to man. Oh, except for that hideous "gateway" side effect!!:yikes::rolleyes:
 
RJM62 said:
To each his own. The GOP's obsession with surveilling and regulating the behavior of individuals was the main reason I left that party after having been a member since my 18th birthday. They're just as eager to control things as the Democrats are. The only difference is the things they want to control. The GOP has more of a problem with a guy firing up a spliff in his living room than with oil refineries or coal-fired power plants; and yet a few here have expressed concerns about second-hand marijuana smoke.

Ironic, huh?

That's not to say the Democrats are any better, mind you. Again, they just want to regulate different things. Which is why I finally said "a pox on both your houses" and joined the LP.

-Rich
Click to expand...
Hey -- me, too! :)
 
RJM62 said:
I think your image of a pot smoker is seriously skewed toward the stereotypical burnout living on a dirty mattress in a skid-row cash pad.

-Rich
Click to expand...

Maybe you're right, and there's little or no health affects to pot smoking. That really doesn't make empirical sense, and I also would consider that casual pot users might be someone cavalier in making critical assessment of the health risks. Much as cigarette companies along with doctors who pooh-poohed the health affects of that habit for generations. Like I said, I'm not going to look it up, and the real story won't be told for a long time once pot becomes legal.

I guess the best I can say for sure is 'we don't know' either way. But if pot usage begins to, or currently exceeds tobacco use as you say, then we are going to find out soon enough, and I'll accept the findings.

Common sense would say that inhaling smoke in the lungs, and with pot, deeply, and long into the lungs doesn't sound like something that would have little to no long term effects.

As an interesting aside, this wknd is Willie Nelson's 4th of July picnic down here in TX. He would be the poster boy for long term pot use, and so far he's doing ok. :wink2:
 
Henning said:
The players haven't particularly changed, we've added a bunch, but the same family names from back then are still in business supply desired items in an illegal market.
Click to expand...


So once they get their ducks in a row and pay off the critical politicians, do you suppose they'll be the "government approved" suppliers of the newly legal stuff after they have assurances that the politicians will drive smaller providers out with onerous "certification" requirements?

Or will it be more like the DeBeers cartel pre-2012?
 
RJM62 said:
I think your image of a pot smoker is seriously skewed toward the stereotypical burnout living on a dirty mattress in a skid-row cash pad.

Although there are such burnouts, most pot smokers are ordinary people, from all walks and stations of life, the vast majority of whom smoke less than daily, and who seem to suffer few health effects from doing so. I know more than a few regular pot smokers in their 60's and 70's, and a few in their 80's, who started using when they were in their teens or 20's, who are now retired from quite successful careers, and who are in excellent health.

Tobacco cigarettes are far more harmful to health than marijuana. How much of this is because of the relative toxicity of the products versus the much smaller amounts of marijuana typically used is up for grabs, but the latter probably has more to do with the relative health of pot smokers: A typical cigarette smoker inhales more smoke in a week than a typical marijuana smoker does in in a year.

Whatever the theoretical case, there simply aren't a whole lot of real-world cases of "marijuana-related disease," especially considering that in the 50+ age group, marijuana smokers probably outnumber cigarette smokers by at least a two-to-one ratio.

-Rich
Click to expand...

Smoke is never good for you. Regardless of it's source. It's just a shame so many people get hooked into believing this is actually cool. When I see a smoker I see a weak person.

Although, I do own quite a few tobacco stocks and I hope people keep being stupid so I can at least profit from it too. Now if I can just figure out which stock to get in order to profit from the cancer and emphysema side of the equation I'll have the dumbsh*ts coming and going.
 
I want the government out of my bedroom, my medicine closet, my junk and the old ladies who-ha. Oh, and my gun cabinet.

I'll decide who or what I want to do with whom or whatever without any help or liberating my tax dollars from my pockets thank you very much. I may get cancer some day and want to smoke it like a freight train. I'll just be an old stoned dying old man out in the country not bothering anyone, except tall tales about flying and other lies. ;)

Just an observation: I never got my ass kicked by a stoner in any of the fights I had during my unsuccessful career as a bar room brawler. It was always a drunk that beat the hell out of me.
 
From the comments you would think this thing we call "weed" just hit the market and we know nothing about it. When in fact it has been around for many many generations.

Many studies have been done by many universities and not once have they found bad health issue's. But in fact these same universities have found things that this "weed" can help.

The Governor of New York had such a study done back in the refer madness days De-bunking everything the government was spouting. They our government told him in no uncertain terms to shut up. He did just that.

Tony
 
Art VanDelay said:
Smoke is never good for you. Regardless of it's source. It's just a shame so many people get hooked into believing this is actually cool. When I see a smoker I see a weak person.

Although, I do own quite a few tobacco stocks and I hope people keep being stupid so I can at least profit from it too. Now if I can just figure out which stock to get in order to profit from the cancer and emphysema side of the equation I'll have the dumbsh*ts coming and going.
Click to expand...

I don't own any tobacco stock because I think it's a dying industry. I suspect more people are quitting than starting these days. I know that no one in my circle of close friends smokes tobacco any more. (More than half of them smoke weed, however.)

I'm seriously considering getting into some marijuana stocks. I think there's enough upside potential in weed that I'm willing to take a gamble. The trend at the state level is certainly toward legalization, and I think the feds will follow as soon as they can find some other boondoggle to **** our money away on.

-Rich
 
docmirror said:
Maybe you're right, and there's little or no health affects to pot smoking. That really doesn't make empirical sense, and I also would consider that casual pot users might be someone cavalier in making critical assessment of the health risks. Much as cigarette companies along with doctors who pooh-poohed the health affects of that habit for generations. Like I said, I'm not going to look it up, and the real story won't be told for a long time once pot becomes legal.

I guess the best I can say for sure is 'we don't know' either way. But if pot usage begins to, or currently exceeds tobacco use as you say, then we are going to find out soon enough, and I'll accept the findings.

Common sense would say that inhaling smoke in the lungs, and with pot, deeply, and long into the lungs doesn't sound like something that would have little to no long term effects.

As an interesting aside, this wknd is Willie Nelson's 4th of July picnic down here in TX. He would be the poster boy for long term pot use, and so far he's doing ok. :wink2:
Click to expand...

dr_WillieNelson_joint_w618_h334.jpg


Indeed.

-Rich
 
Dav8or said:
Pot is one of, if not the most harmless drug known to man.
Click to expand...

Well, that is at least what the people with a financial stake in selling it tell us.

The reality is know very little about its long-term effects. This is mostly the result of it being near impossible to do long-term studies on it. All we have is case-control stuff without any useful dose response data.

10-20 years from now whe the first generation of perma-stoned coloradans gets into their 40s, we may be able to say whether the stuff is as innocuous as the Iindustry and their paid shills are telling us.
 
weilke said:
Well, that is at least what the people with a financial stake in selling it tell us.

The reality is know very little about its long-term effects. This is mostly the result of it being near impossible to do long-term studies on it. All we have is case-control stuff without any useful dose response data.

10-20 years from now whe the first generation of perma-stoned coloradans gets into their 40s, we may be able to say whether the stuff is as innocuous as the Iindustry and their paid shills are telling us.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of studies. The problem is finding impartial ones. Most of them have been funded by organizations with vested interests. Personally, I believe that to include government-funded studies, as well.

Donald Tashkin's 2006 and 2013 studies are probably the closest you're gonna get to impartial because Tashkin, who is a pulmonologist, admits to believing that marijuana is more dangerous than his own studies' results suggest. When a researcher admits to having issues with the results of his own study, that actually adds to the researcher's credibility, in my opinion.

I also doubt that legalization would have much effect prevalence of use. I live in a very small village, in a very small, very rural, very Republican county in New York. The village I live in has a population of < 600 and an average age of 48. We do not have a police department. The nearest police station is the Sheriff's office, which is about 29 miles away. This is the kind of place where no one locks their doors and everyone leaves their keys in their cars. It's like a cross between a Norman Rockwell painting and Mayberry, RFD.

And yet even here in the village that time forgot, no one -- NO ONE -- cares about marijuana laws. About half my friends and neighbors openly smoke it, and a few grow their own. I also know of at least half a dozen commercial growers within a 20- or 30-minute drive -- and I don't even use the stuff! I find it hard to imagine that legalization would change anything in view of how little attention is paid to the existing laws, even here in politically-conservative, law-abiding Mayberry.

I probably should mention that despite my strong support for legalization, I don't use marijuana. I tried it a few times in my youth and didn't care for it. It mainly just made me dizzy. I haven't used it since.

-Rich

EDIT: I've also overheard several very frank, very open discussions about the best lighting and pest control practices for marijuana cultivation at the local Tractor Supply store.
 
Last edited:
Norman said:
Pot and Jack Daniels. That's why Willie sounds like hes does. :D
Click to expand...

I've seen Willie play many times, recently in Shreveport he said freedom to smoke and do what he wants is one reason he moved to Hawaii. At 81 still out putting on concerts, it hasn't slowed him down at all.
 
RJM62 said:
Donald Tashkin's 2006 and 2013 studies are probably the closest you're gonna get to impartial because Tashkin, who is a pulmonologist, admits to believing that marijuana is more dangerous than his own studies' results suggest. When a researcher admits to having issues with the results of his own study, that actually adds to the researcher's credibility, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

If you read the conclusion of his review article, he says pretty much what I have been saying: We don't know and there are few good studies.
 
weilke said:
10-20 years from now whe the first generation of perma-stoned coloradans gets into their 40s, we may be able to say whether the stuff is as innocuous as the Iindustry and their paid shills are telling us.
Click to expand...


If you think perma-stoned in CO just started because the State law changed, you've never been to Boulder.

Did you actually think John Denver's song was about hypoxia? LOL

My first concert at Red Rocks was the Steve Miller Band when I was 4. Pre 1980. Half the audience was stoned then, as they were last summer on July 4th for Blues Traveller.

Colorado has been stoner-land as long as I've been alive.

So there's probably plenty of medical data. I don't know what it says, but there's no need to wait until the 20-somethings are 40-somethings.
 
weilke said:
If you read the conclusion of his review article, he says pretty much what I have been saying: We don't know and there are few good studies.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't the burden of proof be on those who want to restrict freedom?
 
Geico266 said:
The billions we would save in law enforcement would be nice too. :yes:

It is crazy that police have made an industry out of busting people growing and smoking pot. The lessons of prohibition are being forgotten. Legalize it, regulate it, and tax the hell out if it.
Click to expand...

For that you have to legalize all of it, especially cocaine. The only thing I would leave illegal is crystal meth, that **** is just bad news. Normal people can tolerate doing most any drug recreationally and not be grossly affected by it. Meth makes people violent, and they never really sleep. If you need amphetamines, there are others, if it's recreational, just use coke.

The greatest cost, both financially and socially, from the drug enforcement issue, comes from the cocaine trade; not weed. That is the basis of all the gang banging and spillover deaths and violence.

Addicts will always be addicts if there is a supply of something to get them high. You will not change their value to or effect on society in any positive way by making things illegal or difficult to get. The best way to minimize their negative impact on society is just keep them supplied and have zones of cities where they can squat and be high and un disturbed out of everyone else's way. Are they a sad bunch? Yes, but they will always exist, they always have. Many will eventually climb out of the hole and decide to change their lives, now they will have an opportunity to do so rather than the roadblocks from their criminal record of drug charges. It's cheaper to supply them drugs and existence than it is to incarcerate them, and that doesn't include court or police costs getting them there.
 
I never had any interest back in the day, not now either. I guess if I had some type of terminal ailment I may consider.
 
Palmpilot said:
Shouldn't the burden of proof be on those who want to restrict freedom?
Click to expand...

I dont want it restricted, just dont insult my intelligence by saying that it is totally harmless. Anyone 21 and older should be able to buy it at the grocery store (along with meth, extasy, cocaine and heroin, no warning labels).

The reason we dont see a robust effect In the existing studies is because the data is poor and the great majority of users have a sporadic use pattern. A study quoted earlier classified 'heavy user' as someone with 500-1000 'lifetime exposures'. Sounds impressive until you realize that in terms of cigarettes it is 0.15 pack-years. If someone smokes cigarettes with the same frequency, they will suffer little to noill health effects either (similar to the majority of pipe and cigar smokers).
 
Jay Honeck said:
What I find interesting about this debate is that the people who have championed the legalization of marijuana are often the very same people who are most stridently opposed to tobacco. I keep waiting for their heads to explode from the hypocrisy of it all. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Use patterns are almost entirely different. Most smokers use cigarettes constantly or nearly so, their use is measured in packs/day. If anyone is smoking marijuana at that rate pulmonary difficulties will be the least of their problems.
 
steingar said:
Use patterns are almost entirely different. Most smokers use cigarettes constantly or nearly so, their use is measured in packs/day. If anyone is smoking marijuana at that rate pulmonary difficulties will be the least of their problems.
Click to expand...

Cheetos supply would be the issue.
 
Not being a pot user, and the generally accepted dangers of inhaling smoke, would the brownies approach seem to make more sense? If the object is to deliver the THC to the body, doesn't eating a brownie accomplish the same job? Just as effective?

Of course, now we deal with the obesity issue. Is there an injectable form? I know I used to give myself injections, and while somewhat unpleasant, it didn't seem to bother my breathing or cause me to gain weight.
 
steingar said:
Use patterns are almost entirely different. Most smokers use cigarettes constantly or nearly so, their use is measured in packs/day. If anyone is smoking marijuana at that rate pulmonary difficulties will be the least of their problems.
Click to expand...

So what would these problems be if someone is smoking this in excess.
 
Its has stronger effects when you eat it. The heat from the fire when burning to smoke this weed breaks down the THC and lessons the effect.
When cooking it the heat is not as high as when smoking it and the THC does not break down as much.
This is why some will not eat it. Its to strong or the effects are not the same.

Tony
 
weilke said:
I dont want it restricted, just dont insult my intelligence by saying that it is totally harmless. Anyone 21 and older should be able to buy it at the grocery store (along with meth, extasy, cocaine and heroin, no warning labels).

The reason we dont see a robust effect In the existing studies is because the data is poor and the great majority of users have a sporadic use pattern. A study quoted earlier classified 'heavy user' as someone with 500-1000 'lifetime exposures'. Sounds impressive until you realize that in terms of cigarettes it is 0.15 pack-years. If someone smokes cigarettes with the same frequency, they will suffer little to noill health effects either (similar to the majority of pipe and cigar smokers).
Click to expand...

So... aren't we saying pretty much the exact same thing? :dunno:

-Rich
 
weilke said:
A study quoted earlier classified 'heavy user' as someone with 500-1000 'lifetime exposures'. Sounds impressive until you realize that in terms of cigarettes it is 0.15 pack-years. If someone smokes cigarettes with the same frequency, they will suffer little to noill health effects either (similar to the majority of pipe and cigar smokers).
Click to expand...


Please explain what " 500-1000" means?

Tony
 
weilke said:
I dont want it restricted, just dont insult my intelligence by saying that it is totally harmless. Anyone 21 and older should be able to buy it at the grocery store (along with meth, extasy, cocaine and heroin, no warning labels).

The reason we dont see a robust effect In the existing studies is because the data is poor and the great majority of users have a sporadic use pattern. A study quoted earlier classified 'heavy user' as someone with 500-1000 'lifetime exposures'. Sounds impressive until you realize that in terms of cigarettes it is 0.15 pack-years. If someone smokes cigarettes with the same frequency, they will suffer little to noill health effects either (similar to the majority of pipe and cigar smokers).
Click to expand...

Ok so this study says a heavy user only uses this 500-1000 times in a lifetime.

This is the funnest thing I have read concerning myths about Marijuana.

An average user uses around 10 times a day. For 365 days, for 50 years. Yes there are those that have been smoking over 50 years. You do the math.

Remember at one time we had those telling us...the world was flat.

Tony
 
1600vw said:
Ok so this study says a heavy user only uses this 500-1000 times in a lifetime.

This is the funnest thing I have read concerning myths about Marijuana.

An average user uses around 10 times a day. For 365 days, for 50 years. Yes there are those that have been smoking over 50 years. You do the math.

Remember at one time we had those telling us...the world was flat.

Tony
Click to expand...

Well, I've said I'm not going to look stuff up, and maybe my perspective on the whole deal is skewed. But I assure you we are in very different worlds on the recreational use levels.

Absolutely no one in my dept uses pot on a daily basis like this. The best I can say is that it's pretty occasional. I'm sure that rates in college, and in youth are higher in a situation where there's no limit on cost, but 10 times a day, for 50 years sounds pretty far-fetched. The cost factor alone in that kind of use would be mighty high(no pun intended). If regular, workaday people are spending that kind of money on pot, I think it's nuts, but not to the point that I want to stop it, just that it's wasting a lot of money 'up in smoke'(pun intended).
 
RJM62 said:
So... aren't we saying pretty much the exact same thing? :dunno:
Click to expand...

I dont think we are.

At this time, there are very few heavy cannabis users out there, the kind that light one cannabis cigarette with the stump of the last one. Once the drug becomes as available as coffee, we may start to see more of them. Only if we have a sufficient size group of those users and a verifiable measure of their consumption (e.g. purchase transactions), we can say whether the stuff is indeed more or less dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes.

We know that tar from buring cannabis contains the same carcinogens as the tar from burning nicotina species plants. We know it creates fine particulate matter that deposits in the lungs and we know that it causes damage to the respiratory epithelium and an inflammatory reaction. All factors that play into the development of chronic respiratory disease and lung cancer. If we ever start to see people using the stuff in equivalent doses over prolonged periods of time, we may be able to tell what the long-term risks are.

We need to get away from legislating things toward legislating actions. If someone spends all his money at the dope shop and fails to pay his child support, we need to have consequences for that action. If someone crashes a car while under the influence of drugs, there need to be consequences for that action. As long as his actions dont affect anyone else, I couldn't care less what they do with their money, time or life.
 
1600vw said:
Ok so this study says a heavy user only uses this 500-1000 times in a lifetime.

This is the funnest thing I have read concerning myths about Marijuana.
Click to expand...

This was one of the articles quoted by another poster. I just pointed out how weak the quoted evidence is (btw. the link only referred to an abstract submitted by the author, I wasn't able to find a peer reviewed study in subsequent years that would allow one to judge the quality of the study and results)


An average user uses around 10 times a day. For 365 days, for 50 years.
Click to expand...
Your statement is not supported by the facts. That you may know someone who does this doesn't mean it is the 'average'.

I'll just quote numbers from 'High Times' (which quotes numbers from the NSDUH study):

25.8 mil have used cannabis in the last year
10.6 mil use cannabis 6 times/year
4 mil smoke cannabis once or twice/month
3.4 mil smoke cannabis once or twice/week.
5.4 mil smoke cannabis every day.


Remember at one time we had those telling us...the world was flat.
Click to expand...
You must be a lot older than me. I have never been told anything other than the sphere concept.
 
I started doing research on this in 1974. I have spoken with and walked with a lot of people who use this. In every walk of life, from the poorest of souls to some of the richest of souls.

There is no way to know how many use this. Most do it and not even close friends know it.

The article from High times is an est. No way to know the actual number.

I studied history and learned we had those tell its citizens that the world was flat. Has nothing to do with age but education.

Tony
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
Well, that is at least what the people with a financial stake in selling it tell us.

The reality is know very little about its long-term effects. This is mostly the result of it being near impossible to do long-term studies on it. All we have is case-control stuff without any useful dose response data.

10-20 years from now whe the first generation of perma-stoned coloradans gets into their 40s, we may be able to say whether the stuff is as innocuous as the Iindustry and their paid shills are telling us.
Click to expand...

Seriously? This drug has been around and people smoking it long before anyone alive was born. If there was some hideous side effect, we would all be very aware of it. Some of the kids I went to High School with would be in hospitals or dead by now, but they're not. Willie Nelson is not the only old habitual pot user out there. There are loads of them and the clinics and psych wards aren't filling up with them.

It's time to set aside the irrational fear and legalize this stuff.
 
Geico266 said:
Interesting reading. It's time we legalized it nation wide.

http://mic.com/articles/92449/six-m...uana-two-big-things-have-happened-in-colorado
Click to expand...

Despite what you see some states doing, Marijuana is a federal Class I restricted drug. That means:

1. anyone smoking or growing it violates federal law regardless of what his state says
2. anyone stoned trying to get a job where the fed govt is involved will be prevented from employment
3. anyone transporting weed outside of their state risks arrest
4. anyone entering an airport with weed will be arrested
5. anyone taking weed in an aircraft landing in a state where weed is illegal chances arrest and loss of license. also applies to anyone high while getting behind the stick or yoke.
 
The "War Against Drugs" has been a huge failure like the war on hunger/poverty, war on terror, etc. It has only worked to grow government, taxes, and more, and more militarized law enforcement.

As others have said, alcohol is a drug, and it is legal. It probably causes more societal problems than all the other drugs combined, yet it is still legal.
 
CTLSi said:
Despite what you see some states doing, Marijuana is a federal Class I restricted drug. That means:

1. anyone smoking or growing it violates federal law regardless of what his state says
2. anyone stoned trying to get a job where the fed govt is involved will be prevented from employment
3. anyone transporting weed outside of their state risks arrest
4. anyone entering an airport with weed will be arrested
5. anyone taking weed in an aircraft landing in a state where weed is illegal chances arrest and loss of license. also applies to anyone high while getting behind the stick or yoke.
Click to expand...

I think that is what many of us here are arguing. That Feds should ditch this crap. The behind wheel/yoke is already covered. It's called DUI. Legal, or illegal substances included. I don't think there is a person anywhere in this debate that is arguing for legalization of marijuana to include legalizing driving while high.:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top