California Proposition 19 (Legalization of Marijuana)

[FatBoyXPC]

You would have to perform specific testing to determine at which point cannabis smoke overwhelms the cillia.

So you're admitting it will overwhelm the cilia, and that I'm right? Also, thanks for rephrasing what I said.

The dosage obviously varies depending on the activity, but fact does remain fact, no matter how you may say I'm trying to extrapolate.

Edward: I stated earlier (a few pages ago) that I'm for marijuana. This all happened because I made a little joke and people got OMFG SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE IT on me.

 

[endless_akatsuki]

In general, if I make jokes that someone doesn't get, I tell that them that I was kidding and drop the subject, as there is a clear misunderstanding.

 

[Hadley4000]

most joints I've seen have been physically smaller than a cigarette in girt and length.

Depends on who rolls it

Articles HAVE been posted here about marijuana not effecting lung function. If you want to be close minded enough to not actually read articles that have proven this, then maybe you shouldn't even be in this debate.

Here, I'll post a few more for shits and grins.

Although cannabis has been smoked widely in Western countries for more than four decades, there have been no reported cases of lung cancer or emphysema attributed to marijuana.
I suspect that a day's breathing in any city with poor air quality poses more of a threat than inhaling a day's dose -- which for many ailments is just a portion of a joint -- of marijuana."


"In a convenience sample of 339 residents of Wellington, New Zealand, aged 18–70 years (mean age 43.4) comprising nonsmokers and smokers of either marijuana only, tobacco only or both substances, the authors reported that there was no association between use of marijuana and abnormalities in lung function (including lung volume and diffusing capacity)."

 

[blade740]

So you're admitting it will overwhelm the cilia, and that I'm right? Also, thanks for rephrasing what I said.

Yes, but that doesn't mean this level of smoke inhalation can occur from normal smoking. Remember the monkey/gas mask experiment?

 

[FatBoyXPC]

Lol Hadley, yes, I've seen some really big blunts (I saw one the size of a cigar once, but on youtube there's a video of a really big one). I'm not really being close minded, I'm just showing "scientific proof" that all smoke can wear out the cilia, which starts a chain reaction what wore out the cilia continued to happen. As the guy 'suspects' about breathing in a city with poor air quality, that is also true. Who decides what a day's dose is, anyway? That article Andrew Nelson linked to provided a clear bias toward cigarettes in that study (Really, to have a cigarette smoking history you have to smoke 6x as many cigarettes as joints, then to measure how much you smoke it's 1pack of cigarettes to every joint? Really?). You're second is interesting though, because it is directly opposite of what the article said that Andrew Nelson linked to (it directly stated marijuana use in younger age does lead to lung issues).

All I'm saying is, it's scientifically clear that all smoke wears out your alveoli. This is true for a lot of substances though. The dosage does vary from substance to substance, but the point is enough of any form of smoke is enough to give you lung issues. One (or both) of the articles I linked to stated that coughing is one of the ways the lungs try to get rid of this stuff. How many of you coughed when you first started smoking (pot or cigarettes)? That's a sign of your cilia trying to get rid of it. I still see a lot of people take too big of a hit off a joint/bong and they still cough (and they're seasons smokers!) If the argument "but I don't cough anymore" comes up, you can build a tolerance to things, that doesn't mean your cilia aren't getting worn out just because you are used to that "feeling".

Andrew: At what point did I say that it would occur from "normal smoking?" I already stated that it's eventually it will happen. Also, what point is that, exactly? One joint per week? Per day? Per hour? Your article says they measure cigarettes by the pack, yet marijuana by the joint.

Even putting all this aside, and attempting to get back to marijuana specifics: All this can be avoided if you just eat it. Hadley, I'm sure you've got stories about how much better/worse (high wise) to eat it rather than smoke it.

 

[Cubezz]

But it doesn't even effect the users health, in a negative way that is =P

And by that theory, do you think they should prohibit all tobacco products?

I meant if it DOES, which so far, it has not (as far as I know?)
You win >_>

 

[eastamazonantidote]

As much as I'd like to be indifferent on this, I must look at this legally. Congress has specifically said that marijuana is an illegal drug. Article VI of the United States Constitution gives the federal government control over matters it rules over. Soooo...why is this even an option? The initiative system is a great idea gone horribly wrong, and this is just one example of the issues that face our system of government. After all, those in charge must be accountable for their actions. But who can hold voters accountable? No one. Congress must guarantee a republican form of government to every state, which, according to James Madison, means a system to representatives for the people. We are not a direct democracy and should stop thinking of ourselves as one, as it was ruled very early on that a democracy on such a large scale would be a complete failure. The Supreme Court has ruled that the definition of 'republic' is too political to rule on and thus lets everyone decide for themselves. When Arizona was admitted to the USA it came with the initiative system and was accepted, indicating that Congress thought that it was perfectly legal. But the initiative system undermines the entirety of out social contract: that government is there for the people and is held accountable for the people. To reiterate, no one holds the people accountable. So as much as I don't really care what happens with the legality of marijuana, I can support neither the initiative system nor the laws it hopes to promulgate.

*Someone should fact check this. I don't know if everything's right.*

 

[blade740]

Those powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the constitution are reserved by the states. The feds will probably try to use the interstate commerce clause to regulate this, but at the end of the day it'll be up to the supreme court to decide whether it even applies.

 

[Hadley4000]

Even putting all this aside, and attempting to get back to marijuana specifics: All this can be avoided if you just eat it. Hadley, I'm sure you've got stories about how much better/worse (high wise) to eat it rather than smoke it.

Very different highs, which can be used to medicate in different ways. You can't really say what's better or worse. If you are using it for recreation, the setting might depend on which one you would want to go for. Ingestion gives you more of a body high, and smoking gives you more of a head high(Depending on if it's indica or sativa). Then, we can talk about other safe ways, such as vaporizing. In vaporizers, it heats the weed below combustion point, and releases the chemicals into a vapor. VERY good on lungs, very strong, long lasting high.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

Interesting. Are they expensive or something? I've heard about them but I don't think I've ever seen them used. I mean, I don't partake in this recreational activity (but plenty of my friends do, as we discussed that evening at Lexington), but even still I haven't seen it, only heard about it. It seems like it would be the way to go.

 

[blade740]

Vaporizers are fairly expensive ($100 for a cheap one up to maybe $500 for a fancy one) One interesting thing is that while THC, the main psychoactive compound in cannabis, is vaporized, some other cannabinoids (primarily CBD) evaporate at higher temperatures. This is why the high from a vaporizer is different from combustion.

 

[Ethan Rosen]

As much as I'd like to be indifferent on this, I must look at this legally. Congress has specifically said that marijuana is an illegal drug. Article VI of the United States Constitution gives the federal government control over matters it rules over.
*Someone should fact check this. I don't know if everything's right.*

Read the 10th amendment.

 

[Hadley4000]

Vaporizers are fairly expensive ($100 for a cheap one up to maybe $500 for a fancy one) One interesting thing is that while THC, the main psychoactive compound in cannabis, is vaporized, some other cannabinoids (primarily CBD) evaporate at higher temperatures. This is why the high from a vaporizer is different from combustion.

Well, that's where it gets complicated. There are some that look like pipes, where you use a lighter, but the flame never touches the weed, so it works in a similar way, but sometimes it will combust since you can't control the heat.

As far as what most people consider vaporizers, they can start at $60ish, but many of those use metal heating coils, which are dangerous. Safe ones start at around $80, and can go up to $700. Worth every cent, though.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

$80 really isn't bad seeings how you spend that in weed in less than a month. $150 for a "better than safe" one is still very do-able. Interesting. I guess putting that much money down though when you can just buy a pipe, some papers, or drink a soda and use the can has some sort of argument.

Have you had those synthetic THC pills yet?

 

[Hadley4000]

But it really saves weed in the long run. You need much less than smoking a joint or a bowl.

I believe you are talking about Marinol, which is common to get to cancer patients, but it doesn't actually get you high.

 

[eastamazonantidote]

Those powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the constitution are reserved by the states. The feds will probably try to use the interstate commerce clause to regulate this, but at the end of the day it'll be up to the supreme court to decide whether it even applies.

In the last medical marijuana dealings it was determined that Congress can regulate it, so it already applies.

Read the 10th amendment.

Uh...It has already been determined that Congress can regulate drug use because it affects interstate commerce, so the 10th doesn't apply. Also, read the articles you post if you're trying to make a point: the last paragraph of the commerce clause section is all about medical marijuana use in California and why Congress can regulate it. The 10th may be nice, but the commerce clause reigns supreme.

 

[qqwref]

We are not a direct democracy and should stop thinking of ourselves as one, as it was ruled very early on that a democracy on such a large scale would be a complete failure.

There's no reason that a democracy on a large scale wouldn't work (I mean, hey, it already does if you look at statewide elections, considering that some 20 states now have populations greater than that of the entire US in 1800), except for having problems counting. I imagine actually counting up the votes would have been a serious problem in the 1800s, but it isn't now; the only counting problems we have are various Republicans messing with the voting machines. It'd be nice to have laws that weren't passed based on Congressional lobbyists and party voting blocs.

Democracy doesn't really work anyway, at least not while the vast majority of people don't really understand the issues. I think most people just end up voting for what their party or church tell them they should like. Thus you get millions of people who don't know what pot is like but think it ought to be illegal, or who don't understand homosexuality but think it should be discriminated against, or who choose one candidate because he's from their party rather than because they would make a better leader, or whatever. You'd get better results if you only allowed certain people to vote.

 

[Rpotts]

Volcano Vaporizer

The finest vaporizer on the market currently. Runs you around $500 to $700. Some of the best highs I've had have from those. Anyone I introduce it to goes ballistic when they first use it (not necessarily from the high, just out of amazement.) The simplicity, the purity... it really can't be beat.

 

[Hadley4000]

Volcano Vaporizer

The finest vaporizer on the market currently. Runs you around $500 to $700. Some of the best highs I've had have from those. Anyone I introduce it to goes ballistic when they first use it (not necessarily from the high, just out of amazement.) The simplicity, the purity... it really can't be beat.

Over rated. They are better party vapes because of the bag, but it isn't NEAR worth the price. A cheaper vape works in the exact same way. The only difference is if it's a hose or a bag. They still give you just the purity, but save you a lot of money. And I think that a box vape is more simple. Turn it on, breathe in the hose. The Volcanos turn it on, attach the bag, wait for it to fill, change the mouth piece.

 

[Rpotts]

goddamnit i always hit reply to thread when I'm done typing and it deletes all my text GRRRRRRRR

Not over rated, probably over priced. In my opinion a better machine than most traditional pencil box vaporizers, including nice vapor bros. Excellent heating element which produces thick vapor without torching the buds, in my experience thicker vapor than a vapor bros without starting to burn the chron. Slightly more complex than a box vape, but still very simple. Also, I find that some inexperienced smokers have trouble getting the right suction through a whip, but with the volcano you breathe as normal. Slight advantage. Also it is much easier with multiple people, simply tossing a bag around a room versus having someone man the vape/pass around a box that's plugged into the wall.

Don't get me wrong, the Vapor Bros box vape is a good device, I just prefer the volc.