So, Pot in Colorado not going so well...who would of thought?

[AU-24 3,063]

From CNN by the way. Certainly not a conservative think tank.

Colorado's experience with pot legalization can hardly be called a success. In fact, it should be considered a warning for the residents of Washington.

Kevin Sabet

Special-interest "Big Tobacco"-like groups and businesses have ensured that marijuana is widely promoted, advertised and commercialized in Colorado. As a result, calls to poison centers have skyrocketed, incidents involving kids going to school with marijuana candy and vaporizers seem more common, and explosions involving butane hash oil extraction have risen. Employers are reporting more workplace incidents involving marijuana use, and deaths have been attributed to ingesting marijuana cookies and food items.

So much for the old notion that "pot doesn't kill."

Marijuana companies, like their predecessors in the tobacco industry, are determined to keep lining their pockets.

What's in your pot candy?

This is your body on weed

'Nasal Ranger' sniffs out skunky weed

Nation's 'weed fairy' unmasked

Colorado marijuana sales? Not that high

Indeed, legalization has come down to one thing: money. And it's not money for the government -- Colorado has only raised a third of the amount of tax revenue they have projected -- it's money for this new industry and its shareholders.

Open Colorado newspapers and magazines on any given day and you will find pages of marijuana advertisements, coupons and cartoons promoting greater and greater highs. The marijuana industry is making attractive a wide selection of marijuana-related products such as candies, sodas, ice cream and cartoon-themed paraphernalia and vaporizers, which are undoubtedly appealing to children and teens.

As Al Bronstein, medical director of the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center recently said, "We're seeing hallucinations, they become sick to their stomachs, they throw up, they become dizzy and very anxious." Bronstein reported that in 2013, there were 126 calls concerning adverse reactions to marijuana. From January to April this year, the center receive 65 calls.

And, since Colorado expanded marijuana stores for medical users, peer-reviewed research has found a major upsurge in stoned driving-related deaths (that is not surprising since marijuana intoxication doubles the risk of a car crash).

It is little wonder that every major public health association, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Society of Addiction Medicine oppose the legalization of marijuana.

The scientific verdict is that marijuana can be addictive and dangerous.

Despite denials by special interest groups and marijuana businesses, the drug's addictiveness is not debatable: 1 in 6 kids who ever try marijuana will become addicted to the drug, according to the National Institutes of Health. Many baby boomers have a hard time understanding this simply because today's marijuana can be so much stronger than the marijuana of the past.

In fact, more than 450,000 incidents of emergency room admissions related to marijuana occur every year, and heavy marijuana use in adolescence is connected to an 8-point reduction of IQ later in life, irrespective of alcohol use.

As if our national mental illness crisis needed more fuel, marijuana users also have a six times higher risk of schizophrenia and are significantly more likely to development other psychotic illnesses. It is no wonder that health groups such as the National Alliance of Mental Illness are increasingly concerned about marijuana use and legalization.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

From CNN by the way. Certainly not a conservative think tank.

Colorado's experience with pot legalization can hardly be called a success. In fact, it should be considered a warning for the residents of Washington.

Kevin Sabet

Special-interest "Big Tobacco"-like groups and businesses have ensured that marijuana is widely promoted, advertised and commercialized in Colorado. As a result, calls to poison centers have skyrocketed, incidents involving kids going to school with marijuana candy and vaporizers seem more common, and explosions involving butane hash oil extraction have risen. Employers are reporting more workplace incidents involving marijuana use, and deaths have been attributed to ingesting marijuana cookies and food items.

So much for the old notion that "pot doesn't kill."

Marijuana companies, like their predecessors in the tobacco industry, are determined to keep lining their pockets.

What's in your pot candy?

This is your body on weed

'Nasal Ranger' sniffs out skunky weed

Nation's 'weed fairy' unmasked

Colorado marijuana sales? Not that high

Indeed, legalization has come down to one thing: money. And it's not money for the government -- Colorado has only raised a third of the amount of tax revenue they have projected -- it's money for this new industry and its shareholders.

Open Colorado newspapers and magazines on any given day and you will find pages of marijuana advertisements, coupons and cartoons promoting greater and greater highs. The marijuana industry is making attractive a wide selection of marijuana-related products such as candies, sodas, ice cream and cartoon-themed paraphernalia and vaporizers, which are undoubtedly appealing to children and teens.

As Al Bronstein, medical director of the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center recently said, "We're seeing hallucinations, they become sick to their stomachs, they throw up, they become dizzy and very anxious." Bronstein reported that in 2013, there were 126 calls concerning adverse reactions to marijuana. From January to April this year, the center receive 65 calls.

And, since Colorado expanded marijuana stores for medical users, peer-reviewed research has found a major upsurge in stoned driving-related deaths (that is not surprising since marijuana intoxication doubles the risk of a car crash).

It is little wonder that every major public health association, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Society of Addiction Medicine oppose the legalization of marijuana.

The scientific verdict is that marijuana can be addictive and dangerous.

Despite denials by special interest groups and marijuana businesses, the drug's addictiveness is not debatable: 1 in 6 kids who ever try marijuana will become addicted to the drug, according to the National Institutes of Health. Many baby boomers have a hard time understanding this simply because today's marijuana can be so much stronger than the marijuana of the past.

In fact, more than 450,000 incidents of emergency room admissions related to marijuana occur every year, and heavy marijuana use in adolescence is connected to an 8-point reduction of IQ later in life, irrespective of alcohol use.

As if our national mental illness crisis needed more fuel, marijuana users also have a six times higher risk of schizophrenia and are significantly more likely to development other psychotic illnesses. It is no wonder that health groups such as the National Alliance of Mental Illness are increasingly concerned about marijuana use and legalization.

Honestly, stuff is no more dangerous than the stuff the doctors are prescribing like candy unfortunately. I can tell you all about the fun of klonopin and various others along that line.

Not surprised by the push against it from medical associations. Legal marijuana in cases could interfere with there patient load and big pharmacy really doesn't like it. Doctors like those $100 visits that are for nothing but renewing a prescription.

Yes, chemicals introduced to developing child and adolescent mind is going to mess with it. Pot, alcohol, even your study drugs such as adderall.

Lot of correlation does not mean causation evidence in several of the articles, though some appear to have potential to become causation like the cancer one.

[quietfan 233]

It still seems hypocritical to me that so many conservative, allegedly anti-"nanny state" voices want the government to control marijuana use, yet recoil in horror at any suggestion the state should prohibit alcohol, tobacco, or even high fat/high sugar/high salt junk food...all of which are greater health threats and/or burdens on society than pot.

Clearly "conservative" and "libertarian" are not synonyms, although many conservatives like to think so.

Proudly liberal myself, I see no reason to treat pot any differently than the latter three vices I mentioned.

...Or call me "libertarian" in that I don't think it's the government's business what substances I choose to ingest...nor what books or movies I choose to read/view, what firearms I possess, whom or what gender I marry, what religious beliefs I hold, what my bedroom/sexual practices are, or what I might do with my uterus (if I had one)!

[AU-24 3,063]

It still seems hypocritical to me that so many conservative, allegedly anti-"nanny state" voices want the government to control marijuana use, yet recoil in horror at any suggestion the state should prohibit alcohol, tobacco, or even high fat/high sugar/high salt junk food...all of which are greater health threats and/or burdens on society than pot.

Clearly "conservative" and "libertarian" are not synonyms, although many conservatives like to think so.

Proudly liberal myself, I see no reason to treat pot any differently than the latter three vices I mentioned.

...Or call me "libertarian" in that I don't think it's the government's business what substances I choose to ingest...nor what books or movies I choose to read/view, what firearms I possess, whom or what gender I marry, what religious beliefs I hold, what my bedroom/sexual practices are, or what I might do with my uterus (if I had one)!

If you care, you sound more "libertarian" than liberal.

Just curious, your thoughts on the legalization of: Cocaine, heroin, crack, steroids, hash, amphetamines, I am sure there is more...

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Question: Would not every one of these dangers and warnings discussed also be true about legal alcohol consumption?

[AU-24 3,063]

Question: Would not every one of these dangers and warnings discussed also be true about legal alcohol consumption?

Over indulgence of alcohol consumption, yes.

I am sure you know this, and by no means, am I trying to insult anyone but a couple glasses of wine with dinner is much better for you than two glasses of sweet tea or soda. A brandy before bed, better than a soft drink or coffee etc...

Of course, there are laws on the books about drinking and driving, public intox, drunk and disorderly, etc..

And, since Colorado expanded marijuana stores for medical users, peer-reviewed research has found a major upsurge in stoned driving-related deaths (that is not surprising since marijuana intoxication doubles the risk of a car crash).

[Strychnine 1,802]

If you care, you sound more "libertarian" than liberal.

Just curious, your thoughts on the legalization of: Cocaine, heroin, crack, steroids, hash, amphetamines, I am sure there is more...

I'll take a stab at this one. I do not think any rational person condones the usage of such drugs, or the resultant addiction. However, it is hard to argue for their continued criminalization when the results of it are obvious. Criminalized drugs have led to the rise of street gangs, massive law enforcement growth and spending, and a prison population that shows no signs of decreasing substantially anytime soon. For international effects, look at Mexico and the rest of Central America. I do not like those drugs, but I dislike the effects of their criminalization even more. These effects might be acceptable if drug prohibition were actually accomplishing something. Instead, I see lives continuing to be ruined by drug addiction, incarceration, or both. We are long overdue for nationwide drug policy reform, and Colorado is more of a step in the right direction than it is the wrong one.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Question: Would not every one of these dangers and warnings discussed also be true about legal alcohol consumption?

Over indulgence of alcohol consumption, yes.

I am sure you know this, and by no means, am I trying to insult anyone but a couple glasses of wine with dinner is much better for you than two glasses of sweet tea or soda. A brandy before bed, better than a soft drink or coffee etc...

Of course, there are laws on the books about drinking and driving, public intox, drunk and disorderly, etc..

And, since Colorado expanded marijuana stores for medical users, peer-reviewed research has found a major upsurge in stoned driving-related deaths (that is not surprising since marijuana intoxication doubles the risk of a car crash).

There's a reason it's called "driving under the influence." It does not only apply to drinking and driving. It applies to any drug that can adversely affect one's ability to operate a motor vehicle. The same laws that can curtail abuse of alcohol and endangering others can apply to marijuana.

[AU-24 3,063]

If you care, you sound more "libertarian" than liberal.

Just curious, your thoughts on the legalization of: Cocaine, heroin, crack, steroids, hash, amphetamines, I am sure there is more...

I'll take a stab at this one. I do not think any rational person condones the usage of such drugs, or the resultant addiction. However, it is hard to argue for their continued criminalization when the results of it are obvious. Criminalized drugs have led to the rise of street gangs, massive law enforcement growth and spending, and a prison population that shows no signs of decreasing substantially anytime soon. For international effects, look at Mexico and the rest of Central America. I do not like those drugs, but I dislike the effects of their criminalization even more. These effects might be acceptable if drug prohibition were actually accomplishing something. Instead, I see lives continuing to be ruined by drug addiction, incarceration, or both. We are long overdue for nationwide drug policy reform, and Colorado is more of a step in the right direction than it is the wrong one.

You make some good points. What all drugs do you feel we should decriminalize? Should the govt lower the strength of pot to the common 1960's level. Should we limit some of the products pot is put in; chocolate bars for example?

[AU-24 3,063]

Question: Would not every one of these dangers and warnings discussed also be true about legal alcohol consumption?

Over indulgence of alcohol consumption, yes.

I am sure you know this, and by no means, am I trying to insult anyone but a couple glasses of wine with dinner is much better for you than two glasses of sweet tea or soda. A brandy before bed, better than a soft drink or coffee etc...

Of course, there are laws on the books about drinking and driving, public intox, drunk and disorderly, etc..

And, since Colorado expanded marijuana stores for medical users, peer-reviewed research has found a major upsurge in stoned driving-related deaths (that is not surprising since marijuana intoxication doubles the risk of a car crash).

There's a reason it's called "driving under the influence." It does not only apply to drinking and driving. It applies to any drug that can adversely affect one's ability to operate a motor vehicle. The same laws that can curtail abuse of alcohol and endangering others can apply to marijuana.

Yes, I understand. I am certainly not a pot expert, but it appears that alcohol in moderation, is much healthier than the stronger pot of today, found in all of these products mentioned above. Also alcohol in moderation is healthier than soft drinks and coffee, where the amount consumed is not regulated. (some of that stuff from Starbucks, wow who needs speed?)

It, (the article) at least claims with the strength of pot today, 1 in 6 kids get hooked. Driving while high, worse than driving drunk etc... I now there is allot of factors involved, how much alcohol vs how much pot was consumed etc...

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I think we can adjust the laws where needed to account for such things.

[Strychnine 1,802]

You make some good points. What all drugs do you feel we should decriminalize? Should the govt lower the strength of pot to the common 1960's level. Should we limit some of the products pot is put in; chocolate bars for example?

All of them. They are still getting through, in great quantity, despite the criminalization. Once decriminalized, there is at least the possibility of safe and regulated production for most of them. While I disagree with anyone that wants to use methamphetamine, I suspect it is better if they can buy methamphetamine from a drug company than something cooked up by a cartel in Mexico. I think the resources that are spent to maintain this massive and completely ineffective law enforcement campaign would be better spent on education, and prevention/treatment of drug addiction. There is no perfect strategy, but the one we have been using has only made things worse. In another thread, you mentioned that you have a daughter. Look at it this way: If she were to fall into a cycle of drug addiction (or even experiment with it), do you honestly feel like the criminal justice system (court, jail, prison) is where she belongs? Do you feel like they are most likely to help?

The very nature of prohibition means that it is always going to be a losing battle. While even tobacco and alcohol are legal, you must be 18 and 21 respectively to possess or use them. However, a recurring problem for plenty of parents is underage consumption of both, and I have not known any that thought it was wise to involve the police in dealing with it.

I think marijuana is here to stay, regardless of any laws concerning it. I think it should be ultimately treated no differently than alcohol.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I wonder if the stigma attached to drugs like crack, cocaine, heroin and meth would actually result in any legitimate drug companies deciding to manufacture it? I know there would be money to be made but what company wants the stink of having heroin addicts or crack whores as customers? I can't imagine Pfizer or Merck taking any of these up as a product line.

[AURaptor 1,122]

A brief period of 'adjustment' should be expected.

[Strychnine 1,802]

I wonder if the stigma attached to drugs like crack, cocaine, heroin and meth would actually result in any legitimate drug companies deciding to manufacture it? I know there would be money to be made but what company wants the stink of having heroin addicts or crack whores as customers? I can't imagine Pfizer or Merck taking any of these up as a product line.

I do not think we would ever see the day where crack, cocaine, heroin, and meth are widely available in convenience stores, grocery stores, or pharmacies. What I was thinking is something more along the lines of the way methadone is handled. in other words, controlled distribution in conjunction with treatment efforts where the goal of decriminalization is not societal acceptance but trying to enable people to recover from these addictions without the criminal justice system ruining their lives on top of the drug addiction itself. Take the taboo away from it, while diverting real resources into treating it, and I suspect you would see abuse begin to wane eventually.

[AU-24 3,063]

You make some good points. What all drugs do you feel we should decriminalize? Should the govt lower the strength of pot to the common 1960's level. Should we limit some of the products pot is put in; chocolate bars for example?

All of them. They are still getting through, in great quantity, despite the criminalization. Once decriminalized, there is at least the possibility of safe and regulated production for most of them. While I disagree with anyone that wants to use methamphetamine, I suspect it is better if they can buy methamphetamine from a drug company than something cooked up by a cartel in Mexico. I think the resources that are spent to maintain this massive and completely ineffective law enforcement campaign would be better spent on education, and prevention/treatment of drug addiction. There is no perfect strategy, but the one we have been using has only made things worse. In another thread, you mentioned that you have a daughter. Look at it this way: If she were to fall into a cycle of drug addiction (or even experiment with it), do you honestly feel like the criminal justice system (court, jail, prison) is where she belongs? Do you feel like they are most likely to help?

The very nature of prohibition means that it is always going to be a losing battle. While even tobacco and alcohol are legal, you must be 18 and 21 respectively to possess or use them. However, a recurring problem for plenty of parents is underage consumption of both, and I have not known any that thought it was wise to involve the police in dealing with it.

I think marijuana is here to stay, regardless of any laws concerning it. I think it should be ultimately treated no differently than alcohol.

Again, far from an expert but I did have a cousin that was hooked on drugs. He was about a hot mess. The story as, I know it, is he went to Jail for a few days (not prison, but jail) when he got out, he was assigned to rehab, a probation officer, etc... the first couple times he failed his drug tests (After Rehab) the judge put him back in jail. The third time he failed, the judge assigned him to Jail for "one year" and said if it happens again, he is going to the Sate Pen, not just the county jail. That one year working the chain gang, rehab in jail, AA meetings etc... seemed to do it.

He has been clean for 4 years now. Again, not an expert but that is all I know.

[Strychnine 1,802]

Again, far from an expert but I did have a cousin that was hooked on drugs. He was about a hot mess. The story as, I know it, is he went to Jail for a few days (not prison, but jail) when he got out, he was assigned to rehab, a probation officer, etc... the first couple times he failed his drug tests (After Rehab) the judge put him back in jail. The third time he failed, the judge assigned him to Jail for "one year" and said if it happens again, he is going to the Sate Pen, not just the county jail. That one year working the chain gang, rehab in jail, AA meetings etc... seemed to do it.

He has been clean for 4 years now. Again, not an expert but that is all I know.

For every one like your cousin, there are at least two that end up going to prison. Having been involved in more than a few bands over the years (one of which was a touring one), I have known many more drug addicts in that field than not. The severity and substances varied, but the common theme is that there is no simple solution that always works. Sometimes the criminal justice system worked, but more often it did not. Sometimes rehab worked, but that depended entirely on how committed the person was to staying clean once they got out. The big problem with drug addiction is that while the rehab part is rather easy, it is the change once one gets out of rehab (or jail) that is difficult. Drug addicts tend to have fellow drug addicts as their closest friends. A recovering addict cannot hang out with his former buddies without a high probability of relapse.

I do not like these drugs any more than you, but I do see what the war on drugs has brought us (and other countries). Drug money fuels gangs. Gangs fuel violence. Needing money to pay for illicit drugs fuels burglaries, robberies, and theft. The demand for illicit drugs fuels the ruthless cartels operating throughout Mexico and Central America. Law enforcement is not the answer to this, and it never was. For every dealer, gang member, thief, addict, and cartel boss we arrest, there are a dozen more ready to fill whatever void law enforcement creates. We could double our already ridiculous prison population and still not make a dent. That tells me that it is time for us to accept the fact that we have been quite stubborn and that our approach is not working.

[quietfan 233]

It still seems hypocritical to me that so many conservative, allegedly anti-"nanny state" voices want the government to control marijuana use, yet recoil in horror at any suggestion the state should prohibit alcohol, tobacco, or even high fat/high sugar/high salt junk food...all of which are greater health threats and/or burdens on society than pot.

Clearly "conservative" and "libertarian" are not synonyms, although many conservatives like to think so.

Proudly liberal myself, I see no reason to treat pot any differently than the latter three vices I mentioned.

...Or call me "libertarian" in that I don't think it's the government's business what substances I choose to ingest...nor what books or movies I choose to read/view, what firearms I possess, whom or what gender I marry, what religious beliefs I hold, what my bedroom/sexual practices are, or what I might do with my uterus (if I had one)!

If you care, you sound more "libertarian" than liberal.

Just curious, your thoughts on the legalization of: Cocaine, heroin, crack, steroids, hash, amphetamines, I am sure there is more...

A good question, for which I don't have a good answer. But then I don't have a simple solution for peace in the Middle East, rising energy costs, or gun violence either.

Speaking philosophically, I don't think someone should be imprisoned or prosecuted for the private consumption of ANY substances.

However, I do recognize that some things--like heroin, cocaine/crack, meth, etc.--pose much greater risks to the user, his/her family & friends, and society as a whole. I don't know if continued criminalization of the production & supply of such substances can be feasibly incorporated with decriminalization of their use, but that's probably what I'd try. And I'd prefer to see money spent on education, treatment, and recovery programs than on the prosecution & imprisonment of individual users.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

*As for whether I'm "liberal", "conservative", or "libertarian", I suppose everyone has (and is entitled to) his/her own particular definition of those terms.

But I consider myself liberal in that I do want a basic social safety net, including health care, for persons who fall through the economic cracks. I also support increased taxes on the wealthy, the end of "corporate welfare" for the rich and major multinationals, gay marriage, and protecting a woman's right to make her own healthcare choices. I believe in evolution and see no scientific argument for creationism or "intelligent design". I oppose the death penalty, religious bigotry/claims that Founding Fathers endorsed Christianity as the model for our democracy (or any insinuation that the Founding Fathers were somehow "infallible" or always right on every issue), and unjustified wars like Vietnam or Operation Iraqi Freedom. I'm ambivalent on affirmative action, seeing both pros and cons. And I'm tolerant enough to accept that others may disagree with me on those issues.

[Tigermike 3,022]

There is a Pot Pavilion at the Denver County Fair, Check out the competitions.

link

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Lol, best Gluten Free pot recipe.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Lol, best Gluten Free pot recipe.

Is the devil's lettuce typically mixed with wheat to begin with?

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Lol, best Gluten Free pot recipe.

Is the devil's lettuce typically mixed with wheat to begin with?

I honestly have no clue. I knew about brownies and that was it for me on recipe knowledge. I didn't need pot, I had doctors giving me the prescription versions lol, which I really wish they wouldn't have.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I don't say this to brag or lament...but I'm 43 years old and have never tried the stuff. I've only even smelled it once that I know of and it was at a concert. The drunken boor next to us on the lawn broke it out and, of course, offered to share.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

I was never a user myself. Did it once and was like, ok whatever. Was around it at shows and some parties. Knew some girls that wouldn't smoke it but dug it in baked goods. How I learned about the brownies.

[AUDub 11,136]

Bumping this thread because I think this is relevant and did not need a thread of its own.

Thoughts?