What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?

On this subject... (and not necessarily asking Scarlet directly)... does pot smoke carry farther than cigarette smoke? I agree that I cant stand second hand smoke. I'd go so far as to advocate for all public smoking to be illegal (tobacco and pot).

Is there a difference between the smoke itself and the odor? Does pot scent carry farther even if the smoke itself is not detectable at that point?

I was working outside on some lighting the other day, store parking lot, landscaping truck 50 ft from me, you could smell the scent of burning buds pretty easily. Not that I would know what that smelled like. I probably would have smell ed tobacco also but wouldn't have laughed about it.
 
On this subject... (and not necessarily asking Scarlet directly)... does pot smoke carry farther than cigarette smoke? I agree that I cant stand second hand smoke. I'd go so far as to advocate for all public smoking to be illegal (tobacco and pot).

Is there a difference between the smoke itself and the odor? Does pot scent carry farther even if the smoke itself is not detectable at that point?
Anecdotally I'd say marijuana smoke travels further. Odor is a strange case. There are a lot of cases where people think they smell it but it's actually something else. But the odor is far worse than the smoke. That said public consumption is banned in the states where it's legal. I think that this needs to be differentiated.

However the concerns about traveling between units in a building are legitimate. If I was building owner I would ban all smokin. That's generally what's done here and it works pretty good.
 
Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?

If it ever comes up here in MI, I would probably vote in favor of it, assuming it was similar to CO's laws - 21 or older, high taxes, consumption in private residences only (with apartment and condo complexes obviously having final say regarding smoking in their bylaws), and counties can vote to ban sales (but not simple possession) within their lines.

Realistically though, with the increasing use of portable vaporizer devices, I see smoking being less of an issue. And while I agree in principle that not every state in this country needs to be "420 friendly", the reality is that's the road we're marching down. States hate losing sin tax money to other states. We already went through that phenomenon with gambling in the 80s and 90s (with mixed results).
 
Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?

The sensible answer is "Of course legalize it:
-- free up police, courts, justice system resources and reallocate them to crimes in which people actually get harmed in some way
-- reduce gang warfare over drug turf
-- stop shipping drug sale profits to gang members and terrorist organizations
-- reduce prison population by getting "drug offense only problem" folks out
-- allow people who need help coping with an addiction to seek it more readily (once criminal stigma is gone)."

Duh.

We tried prohibition with alcohol and it was a spectacular failure. You think we'd have learned something, eh? :(


The rest of the discussion is not whether to do it, but how to go about legalizing it in a sensible way that addresses ancillary problems that might arise.
 
Last edited:
If it ever comes up here in MI, I would probably vote in favor of it, assuming it was similar to CO's laws - 21 or older, high taxes, consumption in private residences only (with apartment and condo complexes obviously having final say regarding smoking in their bylaws), and counties can vote to ban sales (but not simple possession) within their lines.

Realistically though, with the increasing use of portable vaporizer devices, I see smoking being less of an issue. And while I agree in principle that not every state in this country needs to be "420 friendly", the reality is that's the road we're marching down. States hate losing sin tax money to other states. We already went through that phenomenon with gambling in the 80s and 90s (with mixed results).
The big thing with marijuana is, as more states legalize it, there are issues on the national level that have to be addressed.

Right now the biggest one is cash and banking. Because of money laundering laws, banks do not do business with businesses in the marijuana industries, despite some assurances from the Government that they won't go after said funds. The consequence of that is that all these businesses have to do everything in cash, even paying the taxes, so it makes them highly valuable robbery targets. Some of these places have near casino level security, it's insane. This without a doubt the biggest issue at the federal level.
 
Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?

When I last lived in an apartment building I was far more annoyed by bad cooking smells than weed and you can call your landlord/cops over the latter.
 
Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?

The building is smoke free, so no smoking in any of the common areas but people smoke in their own units. I never smell cigarette smoke in the hallways, which is odd, given that I know people smoke. But the pot smoke odor has been more prevalent. I was just trying to make a point that Rover's comment about not liking/wanting to smell pot is not dumb reasoning.

My building is not smoke-free, per say. Cannot smoke within (x) amount of feet of an main entry to the building, cannot smoke in the outdoor pool area (it is gated). You CAN smoke IN your apartment, but I do not, as the smoke DOES travel through vents and such, and obviously stinks up the building itself by getting into the walls. This differs from marijuana smoke: that smoke doesn't bury itself into the furniture/walls/etc.

I do smoke on my balcony, and yes, I'm sure others smell it if they have their windows open. It IS better than getting it indoors and having it stick, if I smoked in my apt.

There ARE pure smoke-free complexes in the metro area, IIRC, where absolutely NO smoking ANYWHERE is allowed. It's legal, because it's a voluntary lease you are signing, with those terms.
 
Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?

When I last lived in an apartment building I was far more annoyed by bad cooking smells than weed and you can call your landlord/cops over the latter.

People who microwave fish should be drawn and quartered.

This happens at work sometimes and if I ever catch the f-cker who's doing it... :mad:
 
Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?

The sensible answer is "Of course legalize it:
-- free up police, courts, justice system resources and reallocate them to crimes in which people actually get harmed in some way
-- reduce gang warfare over drug turf
-- stop shipping drug sale profits to gang members and terrorist organizations
-- reduce prison population by getting "drug offense only problem" folks out
-- allow people who need help coping with an addiction to seek it more readily (once criminal stigma is gone)."

Duh.

We tried prohibition with alcohol and it was a spectacular failure. You think we'd have learned something, eh? :(


The rest of the discussion is not whether to do it, but how to go about legalizing it in a sensible way that addresses ancillary problems that might arise.

I'm not sure who you are and where you've put FreshFish, but please, leave him there and welcome to the Cafe!
 
Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?

People who microwave fish should be drawn and quartered.

This happens at work sometimes and if I ever catch the f-cker who's doing it... :mad:

Freshman year at college, a bunch of east Asians (I forget the specific country) lived on my dorm floor and they loved to fry up these little finger-sized fish bites. They stunk like I'd never smelled anything stink before. It was five or six of them would gather to cook these things and share them like Americans would popcorn.
 
Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?

Freshman year at college, a bunch of east Asians (I forget the specific country) lived on my dorm floor and they loved to fry up these little finger-sized fish bites. They stunk like I'd never smelled anything stink before. It was five or six of them would gather to cook these things and share them like Americans would popcorn.

I have a few (assuming, given the accent) Liberians. Sorry, but their food smells like crap. And it permeates the hallways at times. Now, when the Mexicans/Latinos/etc cook up their food....man, that smells good.
 
People who microwave fish should be drawn and quartered.

This happens at work sometimes and if I ever catch the f-cker who's doing it... :mad:

My company is building a new ops area for us, and several people asked for a microwave...the idea got nixed by the rest of us for this exact reason...
 
Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?

I'm not sure who you are and where you've put FreshFish, but please, leave him there and welcome to the Cafe!

Don't give him that much credit. Decriminalizing simple possession would address 2 of the 4 issues he listed. The 5th issue isn't really an issue - addicts of any substance who voluntarily seek treatment rarely deal with the legal system. Most of them show up in the ER during withdrawal, and are held until they are referred to a facility and agree to be admitted, and/or are out of immediate medical danger.

Unfortunately, decriminalizing possession alone does nothing to address the gang problems that result from demand. However, that problem isn't exclusive to MJ. Legalizing MJ eliminates the market for that drug, but the market for meth, molly, coke, smack, etc. will remain. So gangs and cartels aren't going away, and of course, there will always be a black market for untaxed pot. Such a market still exists for tobacco and alcohol, and occasionally gets busted.
 
Last edited:
Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?

And add to the fact that marijuana is a non-addictive drug, physically.
 
Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?

And add to the fact that marijuana is a non-addictive drug, physically.

Is that true though? I read an article here that says otherwise complete with medical studies:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine...na-harmless/MneQebFPWg79ifTAXc1PkM/story.html

"These days, it’s become fairly square to criticize marijuana and its rush toward legalization. Twenty-three states have condoned the drug in some form, with four permitting recreational use, and Massachusetts is set to vote on permitting it next year. The proposed federal CARERS Act of 2015 would let states legalize medical marijuana without federal interference and demote pot from a Schedule I drug — one with high abuse potential — to Schedule II. The path toward nationwide decriminalization is looking unobstructed.

But underscoring the incredible momentum to legalize marijuana is the misconception that the drug can’t hurt anybody. It can, especially young people.

The myth that marijuana is not habit-forming is constantly challenged by physicians. “There’s no question at all that marijuana is addictive,” Dr. Sharon Levy tells me. She is the director of the Adolescent Substance Abuse Program at Boston Children’s Hospital, one of a few programs designed to preemptively identify substance use problems in teens. At least 1 in 11 young adults who begin smoking will develop an addiction to marijuana, even more among those who use the more potent products that are entering the market.

Levy speaks of an 18-year-old patient who had started smoking marijuana several times a day in 10th grade, dropped out of high school, and been stealing money from her parents. “She and her family were at their wits’ end trying to find appropriate treatment in a health care system that doesn’t consider addiction to marijuana a serious problem,” Levy says. “We are simply not prepared for the fallout of marijuana legalization.”




Such perspectives have been obfuscated by those who might gain from legalization. “People strongly defend marijuana because they don’t want legalization to be derailed,” says Jodi Gilman, an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School with the Center for Addiction Medicine.

An insistence on the banality of the drug is especially dangerous among younger smokers, a population with an epidemic level of pot use. According to the most recent National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the use of tobacco and alcohol among 12-to-17-year-olds has fallen in the past year, but habitual use of marijuana among those 12 and up is increasing.

“If you go into a high school and ask the classroom, ‘Are cigarettes harmful? Is alcohol harmful?’ every kid raises their hands,” Gilman says. “But if I ask, ‘Is marijuana harmful?’ not a hand goes up.”



To bring balance to a narrative driven by pro-legalization campaigns, Gilman and others are interested in leveraging data to show pot’s real effects. Last year, Gilman published research on 18-to-25-year-olds that showed differences in the brain’s reward system between users and non-users. (“I got a lot of hate mail after that,” Gilman says.) And data supporting the hazards keep accumulating. Recently Gilman found that in a group of college students, smokers had impaired working memory even when not acutely high.

Physician concern for marijuana’s acceptance isn’t because doctors are a stodgy bunch — their skepticism is rooted in science and in history. In the 1950s, nearly half of Americans smoked tobacco, a level of adoption that rendered its health hazards invisible. Meanwhile, the corporate forces that drove cigarette smoking to its ascendancy actively subverted those that governed public health.

While marijuana has not been definitively shown to cause cancer or heart disease, its harmful cognitive and psychological effects will take time to capture in studies. The underlying biochemistry at work suggests deeply pathologic consequences. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in marijuana attaches to receptors in the brain that subtly modulate systems ordinarily involved in healthy behaviors like eating, learning, and forming relationships. But THC — which has been increasing in potency in legal products being sold in places like Colorado — throws the finely tuned system off balance.

“Smoking pot turns the volume on this system way, way up,” says Jonathan Long, a research fellow at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

Each hit of THC rewires the function of this critical cognitive system: Early evidence in mice has shown that repeated exposure to THC causes these receptors to disappear altogether, blunting the natural response to positive behaviors and requiring higher doses to achieve the same effect. Marijuana exploits essential pathways we’ve evolved to retrieve a memory, to delicately regulate our metabolism, and to derive happiness from everyday life.

Medical science at its best operates independently of forces that drive the market and its associated politics. It was science that eventually curtailed the power of Big Tobacco and prevented nearly 800,000 cancer deaths in the United States between 1975 and 2000. As marijuana marches toward the same legal status as cigarettes, its potential hazards will require equal attention by science.

The argument here isn’t whether marijuana should be legal. There are champions on either side of that debate. Instead, should the drug become widely available, it’s to our detriment to blindly consider marijuana’s legalization a victory worthy of celebration. We must be cautious when societal shifts can affect health, especially among our most vulnerable populations."
 
Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?

I have always read that it is addictive mentally, but not physically like nicotine, cocaine, etc. Obviously those with addictive personalities will be more apt to become addicted, but there are no physical withdrawal effects like the things I mentioned.
 
Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?

Is that true though? I read an article here that says otherwise complete with medical studies:

Your article basically says pot is addictive like sugar is addictive. Get back to me when you want to regulate Circus Peanuts.
 
Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?

I have always read that it is addictive mentally, but not physically like nicotine, cocaine, etc. Obviously those with addictive personalities will be more apt to become addicted, but there are no physical withdrawal effects like the things I mentioned.

Gotcha. I'm not aware of physical withdrawals either. What I think the article hit on was how legalization is being sold with weed as a totally harmless product by its advocates. I'm sure many of us knew people, be it in high school or college, who dedicated their lives to smoking pot. Its got to have some addictive properties to it like any hallucinogen might.

Your article basically says pot is addictive like sugar is addictive. Get back to me when you want to regulate Circus Peanuts.

Ummm....it doesn't say that at all Kep. Sugar has THC in it? Then why don't stoners just smoke a box of Domino from the super market? :D
 
Re: Massachusetts Question 4: Legailize Pot?

The article talks about how much of a problem habitual use for kids/teenagers and this is relevant to a proposal that only allows those 21 or older to use?
 
Back
Top