Sure, but it’s also regulated. This whole idea that government regulation is always bad ignores the fact that prior to forms of regulation around shit we put into our bodies, people died in much larger numbers from ingesting products that had no form of regulation. You can’t trust corporations seeking to make a profit, who will cut corners for whatever reason.
OH I agree. Especially when it comes to things we put in our bodies or are exposed to. If it is something that has long term effects but doesn’t out right kill you, and it saves a buck, someone will go that route.
The shit we put into food at the turn of the century before the FDA is terrifying.
I do, but I wouldn’t call placing limits prohibition, per se.
That’s good to know. I just moved back to Kansas earlier this year. I remember when I first moved to Missouri to be shocked you could get liquor at the grocery story (but IIRC at one point you had to wait till after noon on Sundays.)
But I don’t really drink, so haven’t bought any beer since then.
Alfred Korzbyski was reported to have stated, “I said what I said. I did not say what I did not say.”
You seem to be addressing the latter.
I actually agree with much of your stance on regulation vs prohibition.
I don’t equate them unless limits are abolute. Much of the support for Caraveo’s bill came from prohibitionists who’ve been seeking to undermine the voters who approved medical and legal weed in CO. The long game is to limit access, not potency, but in this case, they only hurt patients on disability who cannot afford to pay for two MD evals (insurance doesn’t cover) or who now have to buy much smaller quantities. That increases suffering, especially for those who live rurally or in areas with no dispensaries and have to drive long distances more often as a result of this bill. I’ll equate that to prohibition for affected patients, but generally speaking limits do not equal prohibition.
I’d take that metaphor further; when I go to the pub I’ll usually pick a ‘session beer’, ie one with around 3.5-4% ABV, rather than (eg) one of the 7%+ IPAs that are out there. That way I can enjoy several ppints without getting too drunk.
In the same way, I have asked a dealer for “session weed”, that I could smoke a few joints of without getting completely blitzed.
Not that weed is likely to be legal around here any time soon, but I could imagine a taxation system that treated ‘strong’ weed like spirits, and ‘session weed’ like beer.
Although as others have pointed out, with booze you only have to keep track of the concentration of a single chemical (ethanol) to gauge it’s potency, weed is a bit more complicated.
I do the same. I increasingly seek out lower alcohol beer when I’m out. What’s great, is that there seems to be a light lager trend in the craft beer scene right now. I love it because anything over 5% absolutely kicks my ass (and I’m a big fan of lagers) and I don’t have the patience for hangovers I used to.
On topic, the idea of a less potent pot is smart for folks who want to puff a little, but not get blasted. The more options there are like this (including things like alcohol-free piquettes and other tasty non-alcohol drinks) the better.