• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Awesome Pot Prohibition Article by Seattle Attorney who prosecuted Marc Emery

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

As my law-enforcement colleagues know well from chasing bootleggers and mobsters, this new regulatory and criminal approach will still require many years of intensive investigation and enforcement before organized criminal elements are driven from the vast marijuana market. DEA and its law-enforcement partners must therefore remain well equipped and staffed to accomplish this task: to protect our families from truly dangerous drugs and to drive drug cartels, gangs and dope dealers from our society.
.

Does he not think regulating the THC content and taxing the heck out of pot will create a black market? Who wants weak, expensive pot when they can get high potency for less money from the local black market dealer.

I do agree that it makes no sense to categorize pot in the same manner as heroin. But I don't think the cartels and gangs would go anywhere in the event of legalization.
 
You fail. Tar is obviously harmful, but there are other ways to injest THC.

Synthetic THC is a Schedule III drug (like codeine), and readily available as a prescription. I'm always amused that fans of medical marijuana never consider using that instead.

As I see it, the only real harmful (in terms of health--I'm not sure I like what it's done to some people I know who have abused it) component of marijuana is the tar. It's certainly bad (there's significantly more tar deposited per joint than per cigarette, somewhat offsetting the reduced use), but it's not an addictive substance and certainly doesn't belong as a Schedule I drug. I would still keep it as a Schedule II (equivalent to morphine or adderall, for example), because it simply adds toxins over ingestion of synthetic THC.
 
It's the belligerent assholes that give pot smokers a bad name. Please don't join that sect.

the hoity toity people that look down on people that blaze already think just because you blaze that you are a worthless piece of shit. it doesn't really matter what attitude you have towards it. in my experience, they write you off simply because you "use". frankly it is some of the most disgusting and ignorant behaviour out there. that is the sect that i avoid. with middle fingers in the air.
 
As I've mentioned before. I like pot, but I hate. No wait.. I ultra mega super loathe the culture behind pot. I'd be happy to legalize pot as long as I could kick you in the crotch if you mention 420.
 
Synthetic THC is a Schedule III drug (like codeine), and readily available as a prescription. I'm always amused that fans of medical marijuana never consider using that instead.

As I see it, the only real harmful (in terms of health--I'm not sure I like what it's done to some people I know who have abused it) component of marijuana is the tar. It's certainly bad (there's significantly more tar deposited per joint than per cigarette, somewhat offsetting the reduced use), but it's not an addictive substance and certainly doesn't belong as a Schedule I drug. I would still keep it as a Schedule II (equivalent to morphine or adderall, for example), because it simply adds toxins over ingestion of synthetic THC.

Problem is, products like Marinol have nasty side-effects for almost everyone. It produces a far different effect for most individuals, when compared to the effects of the marijuana plant - especially to a quality cannabis strain.

Synthetic THC, when prescribed as a regular dosage of the chemical THC and nothing else, a pure product, is quite undesirable. When every marijuana strain -- complete with a specific ratio between THC and a host of other cannabinoids -- produces a high specific to that particular strain, it readily shows that complete package of total cannabinoid content is required. Each cannabinoid has a specificity to a certain type of neurotransmitter receptor, though will bind to both types of the cannabinoid receptor (CB1 and CB2 are neurotransmitter receptors to which all cannabinoids will bind, which also play host to a minute and somewhat uncommonly-produced endogenous chemicals that bind at those sites). Thus, each cannabinoid produces a specific overall feeling in the body, and it is the combination of multiple cannabinoids, at specific ratios, that produce a total overall feeling as each individual chemical binds differently, producing a total specific ratio of specificity of action at CB1 and CB2 receptors.

Thus, the best medical usage of marijuana, is for the "prescription", in the form of a recommendation, for specific strains available at the dispensary. That dispensary could be a marijuana-specific "store", or a true pharmacy (and they would need to stock multiple strains for this to be an option).
The best medical recommendation of consumption, would either be in vaporizer-delivered form or used in baked goods. Specific dosage is important, as the guideline/preferred medicinal value approach would be more appropriate, in contrast to getting stone. Of course, there would be nothing wrong with that on occasion, it should be compared to alcohol; you can have a beer or two (or some wine) with dinner, or you can drink more to get a good buzz, or even get drunk. Smoke one small pinch, and you'd probably get all the positive effects and none of the true high.

That serving size would also be most appropriate (as a suggestion or in metered-form) for commercial sales too. Additionally, companies wouldn't be stopped for making stronger or larger servings if sold in some serving-metered form. You can purchase alcohol in various serving sizes and in the measured alcohol by volume (ABV).
 
As I've mentioned before. I like pot, but I hate. No wait.. I ultra mega super loathe the culture behind pot. I'd be happy to legalize pot as long as I could kick you in the crotch if you mention 420.

I agree with you here. The stereo type is blown way out of proportion. Why can't it be classy, like alcohol or cigars? Instead, its stereotypical hippies sitting around doing nothing with their lives. It needs to be shown in a positive light, like a man coming home and enjoying it with his wife or something after they put their kids to bed. You know?

Not mention, the whole culture is really cheesy. Dispensaries have marijuana leaves plastered all over the place, the "420" thing is plastered everywhere, crazy rasta colors. What the fuck?
 
Cigars, maybe a little. But alcohol classy? Since when?

And it can't be portrayed like that until it happens. Stereotypes don't really just pop out of mid-air. That is/was kind of the whole keystone of the scene, regardless of whether it's still relevent or not.
 
Cigars, maybe a little. But alcohol classy? Since when?

And it can't be portrayed like that until it happens. Stereotypes don't really just pop out of mid-air. That is/was kind of the whole keystone of the scene, regardless of whether it's still relevent or not.

I guess when I say alcohol, I think of those Ketel One commercials with the guys in suits talking to all of the snobby hotties with their glasses of vodka and ice. Maybe all alcohol isn't classy -- definitely more classy than marijuana.

Sorry, I think I mean more along the lines of advertisement and marketing. Use those tools to put it in a better light. I should have specified.
 
Haha, yea, I guess when I think alcohol I'm thinking of the Natty Light billboards I drive by to work every day. I could see it in the more upscale segment.

And is there really -any- pro-marijuana marketing aside from grassroots/word of mouth? I don't even know how you would market it, it's just still seems so damnable to mainstream.
 
"The only people who are against drugs are people who've never taken drugs, and people who had a shit time on drugs." - Doug Stanhope

Both those groups need to STFU and let people live their lives as they see fit.

Doug Stanhope is an idiot.....are you seriously using a quote by him as an argument? Wow
 
I bet there is a large correlation between anti-marijuana and anti-gay marriage people.

They care too much about what other people are doing.
They are pushy and ignorant.
 
Haha, yea, I guess when I think alcohol I'm thinking of the Natty Light billboards I drive by to work every day. I could see it in the more upscale segment.

And is there really -any- pro-marijuana marketing aside from grassroots/word of mouth? I don't even know how you would market it, it's just still seems so damnable to mainstream.

Yup...pretty much 🙂 It would work about as good as a lead balloon 😀
 
What I don't get about all the potheads always posting about this stuff is: why do you have the need to get high all the time? Alcohol is legal, but I don't know many people that are getting drunk regularly, except for college students and those with serious drinking problems. Pot users seem to have this uncontrollable need to get high regularly. Don't you think that's an issue in itself, aside of the legal questions?

Theyre usually unemployed and have nothing else to do while their parents are at work.
 
Awesome. A law professor now knows what even the dumbest pothead has realized for decades. From the comments:


So he comes around to the correct side as soon as he's out of the U.S. Attorney position he could have used to actually DO something about it. Fuck. You.

You think the US Attorney can change the law?

Ladies and Gentlemen, proof pot makes you stupid.
 
Selection bias? A lot of the kids in highschool I knew who did whatever drug they could get (usually alcohol, often weed, and some idiots even huffed) turned into losers. Other kids who smoked weed did ok.

Most of my friends in college did a lot of drugs while there, and many still do. Most have been quite successful. The drug dealer I roomed with who did tons of drugs is now pretty high up in a successful telecom company and travels the world on business. One friend whos smoked weed multiple times a day and did tons of acid is getting his PhD from RAND and his fiance is getting a MD + PhD. He still smokes tons of weed, goes to burning man for nice long acid trips, and is going to be pretty rich. I have a Masters degree and am considering my options on what 2nd masters I will soon pursue.

Weed didn't turn the loser delivering your pizza into a loser. He was a loser to begin with. People are usually surprised when they learn I smoke. I dress conservatively, speak intelligently, and project a conservative, professional image.

You'd be surprised how many of us in the Cannabis Closet are out there:

[nsfw pot images]
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/the.html
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.c...05/the-cannabis-closet-the-conservatives.html
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/the-cannabis-closet-ctd.html
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/the-cannabis-closet-the-parents-ii.html

Oh it's not just the money success. I'm talking about physical effects. Some of these kids were really smart in high school and now are "umm like heh, yea..that's hard". Further more they have what appears to be some kind of physical retardation in the face (Think like Doug Benson to the extreme) It's like they have been mentally slowed or are extremely elderly. It's not limited to pot, I see the same thing with guys who drink too much.

Education does not mean smart or that you did not suffer any retardation. Obviously there are people who end up being successful no matter what they do. I work in education, I know many people with multiple degrees who are quite possibly the least intelligent people I know. I am not speaking of that however. Many of my loser friends went to and graduated from college. They are still losers. You can hear it when you speak to them, see it in their faces, and having known them from childhood, I can remember the progression.

I'm fairly confident that in a 5 minute conversation I can tell someone if they are a heavy drug user, be it legal or otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Third, we should give serious consideration to heavy regulation and taxation of the marijuana industry (an industry that is very real and dangerously underground). We should limit pot's content of the active ingredient THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), regulate its sale to adults who are dumb enough to want it and maintain criminal penalties for sales, possession or use by minors, drivers and boaters.
That gem ruins the whole concept. But otherwise I think it's solid--and I don't even smoke the herb.
 
Oh it's not just the money success. I'm talking about physical effects. Some of these kids were really smart in high school and now are "umm like heh, yea..that's hard". Further more they have what appears to be some kind of physical retardation in the face (Think like Doug Benson to the extreme) It's like they have been mentally slowed or are extremely elderly. It's not limited to pot, I see the same thing with guys who drink too much.

Education does not mean smart or that you did not suffer any retardation. Obviously there are people who end up being successful no matter what they do. I work in education, I know many people with multiple degrees who are quite possibly the least intelligent people I know. I am not speaking of that however. Many of my loser friends went to and graduated from college. They are still losers. You can hear it when you speak to them, see it in their faces, and having known them from childhood, I can remember the progression.

I'm fairly confident that in a 5 minute conversation I can tell someone if they are a heavy drug user, be it legal or otherwise.

You can see people's pot history in their "retardation in the face?" But it hasn't affected their monetary or educational success?

I'm fairly confident that most of this stuff is in your head. One heavy drug user friend of mine from college just defended his dissertation in Sociology at UNC, a top 5 program,and immediately started a tenure track position. If you know anything about academia, you should know that this puts him and his career prospects above the vast majority of academics and can't be achieved by a "retarded" person.
 
Last edited:
Synthetic THC is a Schedule III drug (like codeine), and readily available as a prescription. I'm always amused that fans of medical marijuana never consider using that instead.

As I see it, the only real harmful (in terms of health--I'm not sure I like what it's done to some people I know who have abused it) component of marijuana is the tar. It's certainly bad (there's significantly more tar deposited per joint than per cigarette, somewhat offsetting the reduced use), but it's not an addictive substance and certainly doesn't belong as a Schedule I drug. I would still keep it as a Schedule II (equivalent to morphine or adderall, for example), because it simply adds toxins over ingestion of synthetic THC.

Synthetic THC is not the same as smoking marijuana, and has all kinds of negative side effects that are not encountered when ingesting marijuana.

In short, synthetic THC is a huge ball of fail.

There are far more chemicals than just THC in marijuana, and they seem to work together to give the [medical] effects people need.
 
That gem ruins the whole concept. But otherwise I think it's solid--and I don't even smoke the herb.

Do you propose it's just a free-for-all then, with no taxes and regulations?

It isn't going to work that way. It will have laws and regulations similar to alcohol. Besides, we need the income from taxes to offset the billions spent on the failed enforcement over the years..
 
Problem is, products like Marinol have nasty side-effects for almost everyone. It produces a far different effect for most individuals, when compared to the effects of the marijuana plant - especially to a quality cannabis strain.

Synthetic THC, when prescribed as a regular dosage of the chemical THC and nothing else, a pure product, is quite undesirable. When every marijuana strain -- complete with a specific ratio between THC and a host of other cannabinoids -- produces a high specific to that particular strain, it readily shows that complete package of total cannabinoid content is required. Each cannabinoid has a specificity to a certain type of neurotransmitter receptor, though will bind to both types of the cannabinoid receptor (CB1 and CB2 are neurotransmitter receptors to which all cannabinoids will bind, which also play host to a minute and somewhat uncommonly-produced endogenous chemicals that bind at those sites). Thus, each cannabinoid produces a specific overall feeling in the body, and it is the combination of multiple cannabinoids, at specific ratios, that produce a total overall feeling as each individual chemical binds differently, producing a total specific ratio of specificity of action at CB1 and CB2 receptors.

I do understand that the other cannabinoids produce different effects, but why not just creates synthetic blends? Rather than having to breed specific strains, you'd achieve a much higher variety and level of control of the medicinal benefits, while minimizing complications. If the cannabinoids are as effective for anti-nausea during chemotherapy as proponents claim, then there would seem to be just too much money in it for drug companies to not try such an approach.
 
I do understand that the other cannabinoids produce different effects, but why not just creates synthetic blends? Rather than having to breed specific strains, you'd achieve a much higher variety and level of control of the medicinal benefits, while minimizing complications. If the cannabinoids are as effective for anti-nausea during chemotherapy as proponents claim, then there would seem to be just too much money in it for drug companies to not try such an approach.

Why spend money, time, and manpower figuring out synthetic blends when you can just use a plant that is already there and grows like mad? I don't want that to sound harsh, or like I am attacking you -- just a question is all 🙂.
 
Back
Top