Yeah, that ‘effectively’ is a pretty important adjective. Couldn’t they just pass a different provision next year and then go investigate and prosecute all the people who thought they were safe under this law? I mean, they are still violating the federal law, it’s just that no one is going to enforce it at this time.
The word “effectively” does qualify the statement somewhat, yet it doesn’t make it any more accurate. The new budget contains a provision which blocks the Justice Department from spending any funds to block states from implementing medical marijuana programs or to prosecute state officials for their involvement in medical marijuana programs. The language clearly does not stop the Justice Department from investigating or prosecuting businesses involved in medical cannabis, it doesn’t stop property forfeitures, and it doesn’t end any ongoing prosecutions. That’s not “effectively”, figuratively, or literally ending any ban.
2 Likes
That’s even worse than I thought from reading the article. Ending the ban would be actually repealing the law that says you can’t do it. If they can still target businesses, this isn’t even vaguely close.
1 Like
No, pretty sure it was the new recreational use law (possession of small amounts). They’ve had medical MJ for a while.
2 Likes
The irony is that there is real science behind the usage of marijuana for pain maintenance. That’s the biggest thing, right there.
Also, “for a better mood i stay with occasional glass of wine.”
Alcohol is a depressant. No one should be using it for “a better mood”.
3 Likes
There’s tons of evidence showing that cannabis helps with with pain, with nausea, appetite, and spastic muscles. The trouble is that with its classification as a Schedule 1 drug, it’s extremely difficult to study in any helpful controlled way. Putting into law that the government will stay hands-off with states’ medical marijuana efforts eases that tension a bit.
2 Likes
Hyperbole is BoingBoing’s bread and butter!
1 Like
Wow you, just wow.
Dear commenter please step down from your high horse so we can have a talk.
[quote=“Demosthenes, post:17, topic:48482”]
For healing i am the fan of evidence based medicine
[/quote]Yes exactly, then you must agree we should let the scientists do their job.
Being a Schedule 1 (highly addictive, & no medical use) substance for the last 40 yeas makes research nearly impossible
Dick Nixon placed cannabis there in direct opposition to the science based recommendations of the Schaffer Commission
From 1972 The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse
“We believe that the criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use. It implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only 'with the greatest reluctance.”
Please have another glass of wine, we should all rejoice for the decriminalization of benign substances
8 Likes
Got the munchies and @Demosthenes looked like some Doritos. My bad.
3 Likes
I was looking forward to battling @Demosthenes in the comments here though… SBM vs SBM! The chance for a real debate.
Oh well, the Don’t-Push-Your-Luck Dragon has its reasons.
Ty Falcor!
Even tho I know I shouldn’t, sometimes feeding dem trolls feels so darn good.
1 Like
He wasn’t arguing from a sincere place, though. It would have been fun, but also I’m sure he either wouldn’t have responded or, if he did, we would have just gone in circles. No real loss.
I have a sister who has serious chronic illness and my father gave her the money to purchase the pretty expensive medical marijuana card in Arizona – her Christmas gift. It was his idea. I have a great father.
1 Like
Please have another glass of wine, we should all rejoice for the decriminalization of benign substances
Well, neither are 100% without their side effects and what have you. But, alcohol is far from “benign”, in my opinion. It’s so much more dangerous than pot. I drink, but I still don’t like when the two are compared. Personally I don’t think they are that similar. Alcohol can really fuck some people’s shit up, in a way marijuana just can’t.
Says right here on wikipedia
Depressants are used medicinally to relieve the following symptoms:
Anxiety
Generalized anxiety
Obsessive anxiety
Social anxiety
Panic attacks
Insomnia
Seizures
Convulsions
Depression
And I’d say that anxiety and depression are moods that might be improved-- so I might just quibble with your logic there, (while conceding that self medication with EtOH does carry certain risks)
1 Like
This is foolish. Any and all mood altering substances create both short term positive rewards as well as more substantial negative consequences. Most drugs alleviate immediate anxiety, but once the drug is metabolized the anxiety returns and actually worsens. Hence the cycle of addiction…
Point taken, but would you think depression and alcohol go together? Recipe for disaster.
If I’m reading this correctly, I can enjoy federal protections in some states that I can’t enjoy in others? I thought the whole equal protection thing prevented this sort of thing.
1 Like
Maybe, Maybe not
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v19/n9/full/mp2013117a.html
Alcohol use, particularly alcohol abuse and dependence, are associated with increased risk of depression. Current diagnostic criteria suggest that the relationship is causal, but the evidence has only been derived from observational studies that are subject to confounding and bias. Given the logistic and ethical constraints that would be associated with a trial of alcohol use to prevent depression, we aimed to complete a Mendelian randomization study to determine if a genetic polymorphism associated with alcohol abuse and dependence (ADH1B rs1229984 G→A) contributed to modulate the risk of depression in a community-derived cohort of older men. This retrospective analysis of a cohort of 3873 community-dwelling men aged 65–83 years living in the metropolitan region of Perth, Western Australia, investigated the triangular association between the rs1229984 G→A polymorphism and alcohol use and, after 3.2–8.2 years, the presence of current depression or history of depression. The mean number of standard drinks consumed per week (n; standard deviation; range) according to genotype was AA 1.8 (17; 2.7; 0–7), GA 5.9 (262; 7.5; 0–35), GG 8.5 (3594; 10.9; 0–140) (GG>AA, GG>GA; P<0.001). Consumption of 1 or 2 drinks per day decreased the odds of depression (n=610) by 30 and 40%, whereas consumption of more than six drinks daily more than doubled the odds of depression (odds ratio: 2.12, 95% confidence interval: 1.02, 4.40). The ADH1B rs1229984 G→A polymorphism was not associated with current or past depression (P=0.857). In addition, the presence of the A allele did not interact with the alcohol use to modulate the risk of depression (P=0.725). These results suggest that alcohol consumption does not cause or prevent depression in older men.
2 Likes
I do not think “depressant” means what you think it means. It has nothing to do with “depression” (the mood).
Yeah, got it muddled.
