U.S. Senate Democrats roll out draft bill to legalize weed(reuters.com)
reuters.com
U.S. Senate Democrats roll out draft bill to legalize weed
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-democrats-release-discussion-draft-federally-legalize-cannabis-2021-07-14/
88 comments
As someone who is extremely pro-legalization (and pro-decriminalization of all drugs) I still think this is perfectly reasonable. We know rough bounds on the safety of cannabis/THC (probably safer than tobacco and alcohol, probably not a good idea if you have a family history of schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, or if you’re very young) but we don’t really know in depth what the long-term effects are like, for different doses, different age groups, different comorbidities, etc. The government more or less forbid researching this subject for a long time, and the environment is still relatively hostile to it. The research is young.
Yeah I don't really see any error in the logic of making it safe but also wanting studies on it.
Studies on it were very hard to do for years because it was a controlled substance. I do enjoy edibles (probably do them once a month) and in my case I am 100% sure it has changed my memory somewhat. I'm ok with that risk because I do enjoy it but I would like to know more about people who have been doing this for decades.
Studies on it were very hard to do for years because it was a controlled substance. I do enjoy edibles (probably do them once a month) and in my case I am 100% sure it has changed my memory somewhat. I'm ok with that risk because I do enjoy it but I would like to know more about people who have been doing this for decades.
"changed my memory" what do you mean by this?
I have a weaker memory than I used to - and definitely feel extra hazy for the 4-5 days immediately after use.
I think its possible some of it is just me getting older? But there are plenty of studies out there which suggest some link here so it wouldn't surprise me.
I think its possible some of it is just me getting older? But there are plenty of studies out there which suggest some link here so it wouldn't surprise me.
> The research is young.
GP didn't say research on weed wasn't needed, the point is obvious double standards and that agtech should be - but isn't - this thorough (or more, actually, but that's beside the point). So what is notable here is that this call for research doesn't come from being reasonable, it comes from partiality with plausible deniability.
GP didn't say research on weed wasn't needed, the point is obvious double standards and that agtech should be - but isn't - this thorough (or more, actually, but that's beside the point). So what is notable here is that this call for research doesn't come from being reasonable, it comes from partiality with plausible deniability.
They said there was probably already research on weed’s safety. I would argue that research is promising re: safety but more is definitely needed. I agree that this isn’t reason to delay legalization, but it’s still something that should happen.
We do need more research, sure - but in the absence of such, the default stance should be permissive, not restrictive (in general, not just for cannabis).
This is a common tactic to simply delay an unwanted bill without providing a substantive reason why. Nothing further should be read into it.
I think legalization would also provide a lot of safety. Not only because there is stuff that shouldn't be in there, today's weed isn't comparable to that of the 60s and I don't think that is good.
It has been cultivated for yielding extreme levels of THC. It isn't just some weed anymore that induces a small high, it is extremely psychoactive an can easily cause psychosis. Problem is you cannot really determine how much THC you consumed. Your are either stoned or stoned, so high dosages aren't really needed anyway.
I think with legalization you could limit these values to more healthy values again.
It has been cultivated for yielding extreme levels of THC. It isn't just some weed anymore that induces a small high, it is extremely psychoactive an can easily cause psychosis. Problem is you cannot really determine how much THC you consumed. Your are either stoned or stoned, so high dosages aren't really needed anyway.
I think with legalization you could limit these values to more healthy values again.
I don't disagree but I do think if we're talking about smoking something we do want to find out if it has any of the associated risks smoking tobacco does. There are similarities and differences and as far as I know not a good conclusion on that topic.
Putting any burnt solids in your lungs is almost certainly bad. However, this bill isn't about smoking, it's about possession and commercialization.
And you could certainly create a nuanced bill that understands that weed edibles don't share any risk of lung cancer with smoked weed.
In general, inhaling chemical compounds is more dangerous than ingesting them (e.g., vitamin E acetate). Also, the dose makes the poison, and don't we try to wash off most of what we spray on crops?
>Also, the dose makes the poison, and don't we try to wash off most of what we spray on crops?
You absolutely SHOULD wash everything before you put it in your body, but there are a lot of chemicals that plants can/do absorb that can't be washed off.
Example: RoundUp
RoundUp sprayed onto a field will cause the plants to dry out. Intended purpose: Spray this on the weeds to kill them. Unintended usage: Is your wheat/corn/soybeans still wet because it's raining during harvest? Douse the field in Roundup, and the crop will dry out while still covered in water.
You end up ingesting it, because it's INSIDE the corn/wheat/soybeans. BUT it doesn't end there, think about the thousands of products that the corn/soybeans/wheat gets processed into.
You can't wash a loaf of bread.
You absolutely SHOULD wash everything before you put it in your body, but there are a lot of chemicals that plants can/do absorb that can't be washed off.
Example: RoundUp
RoundUp sprayed onto a field will cause the plants to dry out. Intended purpose: Spray this on the weeds to kill them. Unintended usage: Is your wheat/corn/soybeans still wet because it's raining during harvest? Douse the field in Roundup, and the crop will dry out while still covered in water.
You end up ingesting it, because it's INSIDE the corn/wheat/soybeans. BUT it doesn't end there, think about the thousands of products that the corn/soybeans/wheat gets processed into.
You can't wash a loaf of bread.
> would expunge federal non-violent marijuana crimes, further medical research and allow cannabis companies access to essential financial services.
Sounds like all good things but I dont see how this will make it through such a divided senate where obstructionism is the de-facto opposition strategy.
Sounds like all good things but I dont see how this will make it through such a divided senate where obstructionism is the de-facto opposition strategy.
The Senate just passed a bill calling for a trillion dollars worth of spending. It's not like nothing can pass; you just need buy in from 60 Senators. The right legalization bill could do that but it might not have have everything. I'd be happy with removing marijuana from schedule 1, eliminating the penalties for possession and reducing those for selling.
As someone who is not registered to either political party, I don't think the Republicans are really just obstructionists for the sake of it. In many cases they have their own reasons for being against certain laws.
Also, this isn't the 80s-90s. The religious right is much less influential. I could see a bunch of Republicans getting on board with decriminalization if the Democrats phrased it the right way. Unfortunately, they may not want to phrase it the right way and prefer to try to push it through with unfavorable wording just to say the other side is obstructionist.
Also, this isn't the 80s-90s. The religious right is much less influential. I could see a bunch of Republicans getting on board with decriminalization if the Democrats phrased it the right way. Unfortunately, they may not want to phrase it the right way and prefer to try to push it through with unfavorable wording just to say the other side is obstructionist.
The Republicans literally turn their backs on Republican policy positions once the Democrats are for it. The ACA started life in 1994 as Newt Gingrich and the Heritage Foundation's HEART Act, including the individual mandate. It then became the crown jewel of Mitt Romney's healthcare reform in MA, with it planned for being pushed as a federal rollout before Obama beat him to the punch and took the wind out of his sails wrt potential election promises.
I personally think the ACA is an awful bill, but I'm pretty alone among Democrats with that opinion.
I personally think the ACA is an awful bill, but I'm pretty alone among Democrats with that opinion.
You're far from alone. It's widely thought of as a bad compromise, but the only one that could navigate the tortuous straits of needing to get every single Democratic Senator on board -- and skip out on the reconciliation process because one Senator died.
A ton of Democrats would much rather have seen a very different bill, at least a Medicare-for-all plan, but that was simply not on the table. Others would have preferred a bill with a much freer market, but that wasn't possible either unless they got cross-aisle support, which failed to materialize. Nobody thinks of it as their ideal bill.
Most see it as a marginal improvement over the previous law, because it allows more people to have health insurance. That made it a "big [effing] deal" despite nearly universal criticism.
A ton of Democrats would much rather have seen a very different bill, at least a Medicare-for-all plan, but that was simply not on the table. Others would have preferred a bill with a much freer market, but that wasn't possible either unless they got cross-aisle support, which failed to materialize. Nobody thinks of it as their ideal bill.
Most see it as a marginal improvement over the previous law, because it allows more people to have health insurance. That made it a "big [effing] deal" despite nearly universal criticism.
Multiple Republicans in positions to know what their policy is have repeatedly stated that they see obstructionism as their path back to political control.
You don't need to be a cynic, just listen to what they're saying.
You don't need to be a cynic, just listen to what they're saying.
I can't disagree with your first sentence more. The current crop of legislators, both D and R, have shown that they're not above opposing something just because the other side came up with it.
And I do think that evangelicals still have quite a stranglehold on the party, but they have more pressing priorities.
And I do think that evangelicals still have quite a stranglehold on the party, but they have more pressing priorities.
Did you notice that you deny that Republicans are obstructionist but don't extend the same good faith to Democrats?
Going so far as to hypothesize bad faith in the proposing of a bill like this to make the Republicans look bad.
Going so far as to hypothesize bad faith in the proposing of a bill like this to make the Republicans look bad.
I'm just saying what I'm observing. Maybe my observation is incorrect, but that's how it seems to me at the moment.
Sure, but you need to ask for at least some things that you will likely not get. That give you some wiggle room while negotiating. If you start with compromise position you will get very little of what you want and mostly what the other party prefers.
I think putting the opposition party on the record on this issue is part of the strategy because it is seen as broadly popular.
[deleted]
The banks are chomping at the bit to get in on this revenue and so we can hope their influence with the right is enough to move them. The expunging of crimes is probably going to be the nonstarter that kills it. The 'party of law and order' doesn't like the idea of people 'disrespecting the law' and often react strongly to any suggestion that someone who knowingly broke the law, when it was the law, being excused for that post behavior. These are the same people that insist you refer to judges as 'your honor' and are happy to throw you in jail for 'disrespecting' the judge, which in real life translates to don't you dare talk back or disagree even when they are being unreasonable or even downright hostile themselves. As distasteful as it is, I think we would be better served to remove that and focus on locking down the major win of not ruining anymore lives moving forward.
Either way, the tide is clearly turning with so many states refusing to comply with the federal ban, and the federal government refusing to punish those states for it, that it is clear it will happen eventually.
Either way, the tide is clearly turning with so many states refusing to comply with the federal ban, and the federal government refusing to punish those states for it, that it is clear it will happen eventually.
I find it amusing that "weed" is on the same tier of drugs as Heroin, LSD, MDMA and it is an entire class above Cocaine, fentanyl, oxycodone [1].
Schedule I drugs
— High abuse potential.
— There is no accepted use for these drugs in medical practice.
— They cannot be prescribed.
— Drugs include heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), and mescaline.
Schedule II drugs — High potential for abuse and dependence.
— Generally require non-refillable, written prescription.
— Drugs include morphine , codeine , methadone , oxycodone , hydromorphone , meperidine , fentanyl , cocaine...
[1] https://uptowho.com/contents/UTD.htm?35/43/36535?source=see_...
Note: the above is a free version of UpToDate (physician portal that is widely used in the field.)
Schedule I drugs
— High abuse potential.
— There is no accepted use for these drugs in medical practice.
— They cannot be prescribed.
— Drugs include heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), and mescaline.
Schedule II drugs — High potential for abuse and dependence.
— Generally require non-refillable, written prescription.
— Drugs include morphine , codeine , methadone , oxycodone , hydromorphone , meperidine , fentanyl , cocaine...
[1] https://uptowho.com/contents/UTD.htm?35/43/36535?source=see_...
Note: the above is a free version of UpToDate (physician portal that is widely used in the field.)
While we're at it, why is LSD in the same tier as heroin? It's far safer than that, or even cocaine, and it has therapeutic uses.
It's because of a broken feedback mechanism. Officially, it has no therapeutic uses, which means medical research is not sanctioned. Without medical research you can't discover therapeutic uses. And when someone does do the research, that research is by definition unsanctioned, so it's not officially recognized. Catch-22.
The same reasoning means the original classification of "high abuse potential" is difficult to overturn as well.
The same reasoning means the original classification of "high abuse potential" is difficult to overturn as well.
I'm not a smoker but Im glad this is finally happening. It's tragic how many people had their records ruined by minor possessions charges and I hope they're made whole. I think a non-trivial portion of any new legal sales should go to anyone who was charged and jailed for selling it previously.
Now that half the states have already legalized it and reaps a ton in tax revenue, the fed wants their cut at a time when tax revenue is drying up. These states have been ignoring federal law for a very long time now, without consequence, so there might as well not be that law if you're not going to actually enforce it.
Money doesn't seem to be a motivating factor for Democrats. I believe decriminalizing marijuana related crimes is likely higher on the agenda.
Regardless of what states have done, without Federal legalization, marijuana businesses are cut off from most financial products provided by the "mainstream" financial institutions, including aid from the Federal Government during emergencies (e.g. the current pandemic). So this step would be quite impactful.
Regardless of what states have done, without Federal legalization, marijuana businesses are cut off from most financial products provided by the "mainstream" financial institutions, including aid from the Federal Government during emergencies (e.g. the current pandemic). So this step would be quite impactful.
Cannabis was considered an essential industry in Oregon during the pandemic. They, along with state run alcohol stores, were exempt from shutdowns. Recreational drugs are essential here. Most states that have legalized it also have a component for relief on past non-violent crimes, although true, doesn't affect the federal level crimes (which they hardly prosecute anymore since legalization - you have to be very egregious).
When Oregon first started its recreational program in 2016, they collected about $20M in taxes [1]. In 2020, it was $133M. Other states are similar. It has a lot to do with $$$, it always does. Politicians sell ideas using emotions, but we have to dig deeper.
[1] https://www.oregon.gov/DOR/programs/gov-research/Documents/F...
When Oregon first started its recreational program in 2016, they collected about $20M in taxes [1]. In 2020, it was $133M. Other states are similar. It has a lot to do with $$$, it always does. Politicians sell ideas using emotions, but we have to dig deeper.
[1] https://www.oregon.gov/DOR/programs/gov-research/Documents/F...
It's essential because people aren't going to stop doing recreational drugs when you tell them they need to stay in their houses. You just push them to using the informal economy which won't comply with spread prevention guidelines.
They tried to declare dispensaries and liquor stores non-essential in CO, and the run on stores caused a couple super spreader events within hours before they reversed their decision. A brewery near by made some awesome glasses that say "Denver Prohibition 3/23/2020 3PM - 3/23/2020 5PM Never Forget".
They tried to declare dispensaries and liquor stores non-essential in CO, and the run on stores caused a couple super spreader events within hours before they reversed their decision. A brewery near by made some awesome glasses that say "Denver Prohibition 3/23/2020 3PM - 3/23/2020 5PM Never Forget".
I'm not sure the federal tax revenue is the big motivator here. Currently most (all?) cannabis operations are paying MASSIVE federal taxes under rule 280E. Federally legalizing should substantially reduce the effective federal tax rate on the cannabis industry.
Now, you might offset that by having MORE cannabis business revenue nationally, instead of just in the legalized states, but don't think the IRS isn't getting their piece of the pie already....
Now, you might offset that by having MORE cannabis business revenue nationally, instead of just in the legalized states, but don't think the IRS isn't getting their piece of the pie already....
This was a month ago (July 14th).
I hope this means it can be purchased online and mailed easily. Right now municipalities have taken the opportunity to tax it overzealously, and we could use some competition on that front.
Do you not think that municipalities will still find a way to collect that? Remember the fight over state sales tax w/internet purchases a few years ago?
Either way more competition is good, and competition doesn't have to be across state lines. Right now it is possible to drive over to the next county with lower sales taxes/fees.
I can save $42.50 on my next iphone simply by buying it in the county where my job is, before I head home.
I can save $42.50 on my next iphone simply by buying it in the county where my job is, before I head home.
Proposed bills usually go nowhere, so are usually off topic for HN.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Why make things so complicated (so they fail)?
Just pass a bill removing it from the Schedule 1 list! It's absolutely illogical for it to be on that list.
Just pass a bill removing it from the Schedule 1 list! It's absolutely illogical for it to be on that list.
Definitely appreciate that this seems to be heading in the right direction.
> limited retail sales transactions at the state level to 10 ounces of cannabis at a time
What's the intent of a rule like that? Prevent one 21 year old from buying a pound for his under-21 friends? I feel like alcohol has proven that this is pretty futile. Is there some other point?
> limited retail sales transactions at the state level to 10 ounces of cannabis at a time
What's the intent of a rule like that? Prevent one 21 year old from buying a pound for his under-21 friends? I feel like alcohol has proven that this is pretty futile. Is there some other point?
I always assumed those were dividing lines that let rando citizens do their thing without trouble ... and a way to identify potental illegal traffickers.
Despite being legal, illegal pot I believe is still cheaper / in demand in places.
Despite being legal, illegal pot I believe is still cheaper / in demand in places.
My guess would be that the intent is to put a roadblock in the way of anyone trying to make an illegal secondary market.
Ten ounces is a lot of marijuana. For reference, one ounce typically costs $200-300, and is enough to roll roughly 50 joints. If you were buying for friends, even one or two ounces would be more than enough.
If you're buying more than ten ounces of marijuana at a time, you're buying it for resale. Even a heavy user would have a hard time justifying that large of a purchase.
If you're buying more than ten ounces of marijuana at a time, you're buying it for resale. Even a heavy user would have a hard time justifying that large of a purchase.
I'm surprised this is just hitting HN now since it happened last month.
But I look forward to being able to use credit cards with services like Sava. The last time I used a delivery service they could take cash or sketchy apps which link to your debit card.
But I look forward to being able to use credit cards with services like Sava. The last time I used a delivery service they could take cash or sketchy apps which link to your debit card.
The elephant in the room is named Biden. Even if this gets past the senate, is there any reason to think that the president would sign it? The bill sure isn't veto-proof.
https://www.marijuanamoment.net/biden-remains-opposed-to-mar...
https://www.marijuanamoment.net/biden-remains-opposed-to-mar...
Most observers doubt it will make it that far. It needs unanimity among Democrats in the Senate, which it's unlikely to get.
This is more about nudging the Overton window, declaring that it's something they will consider seriously. They want people to see what such a bill could look like, and what would be in it, to see how they react.
It's possible that the Democrats will pick up a few Senate seats in 2022, making passage more feasible. If so, Biden's veto becomes relevant, but it's also subject to internal party negotiations. They could provide various ways to mitigate his concerns, or simply make clear that it would greatly improve the party's standing.
That's a problem for a couple of years from now, when things will be different. They're just laying the groundwork.
This is more about nudging the Overton window, declaring that it's something they will consider seriously. They want people to see what such a bill could look like, and what would be in it, to see how they react.
It's possible that the Democrats will pick up a few Senate seats in 2022, making passage more feasible. If so, Biden's veto becomes relevant, but it's also subject to internal party negotiations. They could provide various ways to mitigate his concerns, or simply make clear that it would greatly improve the party's standing.
That's a problem for a couple of years from now, when things will be different. They're just laying the groundwork.
Seems strange to me that a purportedly high-integrity journalistic organization would refer to it as ‘weed’ in the headline. Is ‘cannabis’ not click-baity enough for Reuters?
To me it immediately connotes a recreational use, which is a useful distinction from purely medical (or pseudo-medical) applications.
So the word seems appropriate even if part of the familiar venacular.
So the word seems appropriate even if part of the familiar venacular.
that makes sense. What is pseudo-medical? Drugs to alter mood can be prescribed, but if they aren't is it recreational or self medication? If boredom is causing distress, could the drugs taken to ease it be considered medical? That may be a really bad idea for robust mental health, but sadly that is sometimes true for the prescribed drugs as well.
Not even controversial...
Hmm, did the party just do something incredibly unpopular recently or something?...
Why not leave this to the states to decide?
This would enable that. Right now, in states that have legalized, retailers and users are still in contravention of federal law.
12 states have completely legalized recreational cannabis use (like alcohol - 21yrs and over), and 36 for medical use, so they have been.
That's what this does:
> States will control the possession, production, or distribution of cannabis, the draft says, while shipping marijuana into states that have not legalized it will be prohibited.
As opposed to the status quo where in principle the federal government could decide to prosecute... shall we say "marijuana market participants"? in states where it is legal.
> States will control the possession, production, or distribution of cannabis, the draft says, while shipping marijuana into states that have not legalized it will be prohibited.
As opposed to the status quo where in principle the federal government could decide to prosecute... shall we say "marijuana market participants"? in states where it is legal.
Well, not quite, since it still comes with a bunch of federal restrictions like that 10 oz limit. Letting the states decide would mean that feds get out of the game entirely on this.
That's fair; if the intent of the parent comment was that this doesn't go far enough, then I don't think I disagree (and certainly not for this reason).
Marijuana shops can’t access banking, customers and businesses are still in theory breaking federal laws
Just a guess, but I'd assume this is a step in that direction?
One somewhat related item -- the federal prohibition of alcohol (Amendment 18) and its repeal (Amendment 21) -- stems from the commerce clause, which enumerates the powers held by the Federal legislative branch: including the regulation of intrastate and interstate commerce. IANAL or a constitutional scholar, so grains of salt.
Fun fact: though the 21st amendment came into being in 1933, Mississippi was one of the last states to repeal a state-wide dry law in 1966. [0]
[0] https://www.mdah.ms.gov/timeline/zone/1966/
One somewhat related item -- the federal prohibition of alcohol (Amendment 18) and its repeal (Amendment 21) -- stems from the commerce clause, which enumerates the powers held by the Federal legislative branch: including the regulation of intrastate and interstate commerce. IANAL or a constitutional scholar, so grains of salt.
Fun fact: though the 21st amendment came into being in 1933, Mississippi was one of the last states to repeal a state-wide dry law in 1966. [0]
[0] https://www.mdah.ms.gov/timeline/zone/1966/
>The draft set the minimum age required to buy cannabis at 21
21?
Haven't we as a society progressed past this pernicious discrimination!
21?
Haven't we as a society progressed past this pernicious discrimination!
At some point you pick a number, it will always seem somewhat arbitrary.
How about the same number that lets you vote, and decide where you live, or get drafted, and get married without parental consent, and get medical care without parental consent?
Voting, moving out, getting medical care, and marriage generally don't negatively impact your body and brain.
Alcohol, weed, cigarettes, etc. all do some kind of damage to your body. If anything we should raise cigarettes to 21. And yes, even weed, especially smoking weed, does damage to your body, even if it's massively less than the other two I said.
(And getting drafted... well that should just go away all together).
Alcohol, weed, cigarettes, etc. all do some kind of damage to your body. If anything we should raise cigarettes to 21. And yes, even weed, especially smoking weed, does damage to your body, even if it's massively less than the other two I said.
(And getting drafted... well that should just go away all together).
then coca cola and energy drinks like monster/red bull should be for 21 too?
Banning sugar and caffeine would be tough.
For sugar, what do you actually ban? Added sugar? There's plenty of sugar in fruits, especially when you juice them. How do you enforce this? Seems like a nightmare to figure out.
Caffeine is interesting. It's actually physically addictive. I can't find any studies on long term effects of caffeine in children, though.
And, of course, there's exactly 0 support to do any of that, which can't be ignored. Probably a better use of everyone's time to improve health education.
For sugar, what do you actually ban? Added sugar? There's plenty of sugar in fruits, especially when you juice them. How do you enforce this? Seems like a nightmare to figure out.
Caffeine is interesting. It's actually physically addictive. I can't find any studies on long term effects of caffeine in children, though.
And, of course, there's exactly 0 support to do any of that, which can't be ignored. Probably a better use of everyone's time to improve health education.
we should be increasing some of those numbers to 21 too
If we want to go down the human developmental discussion ... not sure that results in more options or less for those under 21...
I say leave the number-choosing to the states.
Regulate medical marijuana like any other non-scheduled drug and leave cultural decisions concerning recreational use to the states, where it belongs. Use federal funding stipulations as leverage when needed.
Regulate medical marijuana like any other non-scheduled drug and leave cultural decisions concerning recreational use to the states, where it belongs. Use federal funding stipulations as leverage when needed.
Pick a number and it is still arbitrary, doesn't matter who does it ;)
I didn't mean to imply that it was any less arbitrary (the arbitrariness of the numbers is disputed in other threads), only that I view the feds setting that number as overstepping.
The brain is developing until around 25, so if anything, the age should be higher if the intent is to prevent unsafe use.
That would also then apply to other legal drugs, such as alcohol, no? Does alcohol not affect a developing brain in people under 25?
Yes, alcohol has an effect on developing brains as well, although the brain is less malleable as you approach that age. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24173194
All I ask and hope for is consistency in the law. We shouldn't use reasons like "it's a forming brain" to shoot it down in one drug context while ignoring it in another, totally legal drug context. Alcohol is a drug, period. A very destructive drug, and it's completely legal for anyone of age. If cannabis is too destructive to young minds to be legalized, so is alcohol and we have way more scientific evidence in that case. Let's just be consistent.
If you like consistency, then you'll like this bill. It sets the legal age of buying cannabis to 21, the same as alcohol.
The brain is still developing at that age and marijuana has well documented effects on brain development.
Weed is still somewhat dangerous to smoke because of lung cancer and we regulate cigarettes so there's some precedent here.
On the other hand, there are methods with which to use weed that confer 0% risk of lung cancer and my anecdotal evidence suggests more and more people are using those methods.
On the other hand, there are methods with which to use weed that confer 0% risk of lung cancer and my anecdotal evidence suggests more and more people are using those methods.
Vaporizing, or using edibles, or other concentrates, eliminates that as you aren't burning/combusting anything, which is where most of those harms come from. There are plenty of ways to ingest now without actually smoking it. You can even get chocolates and gummy bears in legal places.
At the weed shop I've gone to a couple times, the people there said over half their customers are buying edibles. Most people don't want to inhale smoke, not just because of the health concerns, but because of the lingering smell.
I smoked it once, and I hated the taste. It left a lingering taste in the back of my throat.
I smoked it once, and I hated the taste. It left a lingering taste in the back of my throat.
I wish that we had this same attitude towards chemicals sprayed on crops where it seems to be everything is fine until proven to be harmful. Yet with weed it is harmful until proven safe. Also, I suspect there is plenty of research on the safety of weed
edit: to all of those arguing that there may be/ are dangers to weed, I don't disagree. How about the fact that I can choose to not ingest weed, I have to eat and it is quite difficult to find disclosures about chemicals sprayed on the food available, and many of these chemical have been researched far less then weed.