Reply With Quote
This is where democrats and boots get themselves into a mess. Who needs help and who does not give a ...
Ha. I've always had this stance on things of this nature you just haven't paid much attention.
This is where democrats and boots get themselves into a mess. Who needs help and who does not give a ...
It's regulated in all forms.
I don't need to know chug a quart to know that binge drinking to the point of overdose is an issue that's constantly brought up on college campuses, which implies that plenty of kids don't know when to stop.
I don't think death by edible marijuana is going to deter policy makers from passing future legalization legislation as you claim it might.
True.
I have noticed that those (not necessarily you) who favor strict regulation on many many things suddenly oppose regulation when it comes to getting high.
The point is you can regulate all you want, it can still be abused.
And you know this.
Other than that, legal sales do need to have proper info for the consumer just like alcohol.
How many in this thread have actually tried edibles?
So, one according to the article..
Neither is the legal status of THC here.The legal status of alcohol is not in question.Of course it's relevant. both are legal and the content of both drugs in their ingestible form are regulated. If you ingest too much of either, bad things could happen -- but the things that happen with binge drinking are much more commonly worse than those that can happen with THC.Alcohol content is regulated. Ingesting alcohol gives immediate feedback as to how much you have consumed. If you chug a quart of vodka you don't have to wait 30 minutes to know if you've drank too much.
All of which make the alcohol comparison irrelevant to the topic. Topic is marijuana, specifically edibles.
You should read the article you posted. The amount per serving is regulated.
Don't take a bottle of Tylenol at once.
Don't drink a quart of vodka at once.
Don't eat a tray of hash brownies at once.
What is the difference?
Oh right, the first two can flat out kill you chemically.
I know that the point Manny was trying to make but that was not the point.
That's closer to the point. However there is still the issue of what is reasonable. It would not be reasonable for Tylenol to put a lethal dose of acetaminophen in a single capsule as long as they warn people it is lethal. As I understand it, under Colorado law there is no regulation of how powerful a pot cookie can be, only how many cookies you can buy. It is reasonable to hold the individual accountable for eating a dozen pot cookies at once, put the same amount of THC in one cookie and that becomes an unreasonable product to be selling legally imo.
On one of the do entaries I've seen on Colorado's experiment the manufacturer was bragging that if someone drank one of his pot soft drinks before they went skiing they would never be able to get off the ski lift...this is not good for the legalization effort.
Apparently they never have. I guess that's why they are trying to make stupid analogies. It doesn't take a genius to know that when pot is available to the general public people who have never done it are most likely to try edibles first and they are going to themselves up without even knowing what's about to happen to them...but there can't be any policy implications in that right?
Just let us get HIGH!
I did read the article. I got sidetracked responding to the dumb analogies you guys were throwing out. The original point is edibles need greater regulation and pose a threat to further legalization efforts. You can disagree but more of this will happen...just wait and see.
What nanny state regulation are you calling for?
And more what?
More deaths? How many deaths from edibles were there before this one when edibles were completely unregulated?
Regulating the potency makes sense. But is this a case where the brownies that were eaten were indeed too potent? There seems to be quite a presumption of cause.
Moreso then the potency is the labeling, kids being what they are. That type of regulation is done by the FDA and the department of health and human services. They need to change the scheduling of the drug and treat it like caffeine and an age limit.
if not then the state needs to get involved and create their own ins utions modeled after the FDA. Merge them with the vice agencies like TABC here in Texas. There are easy tried and true solutions for these issues.
The original point was that the nature of edibles poses a bigger problem. I don't like edibles but when I've done them it takes around an 1 1/2 hours for me to feel any effect. Now you offer these products to the general public, people who have never done pot, and some of them are going to try one, no effect, try another, no effect....then bad things can happen. I'm quite sure trial lawyers will eventually have fun going after BIG POT.
You're acting like I'm making an anti legalization argument. I'm not. What I am saying is that edibles pose a big problem...I've posted two articles showing the Colorado legislature agrees. I don't know what the answer is...edibles are going to some people up...and that has policy implications.
I used to grow pot and we would take all of the trimmings and put them in an old washing machine box. We would take that when it filled up and steep/sautee it in various oils. olive, peanut, butter, etc. I had a steady stream of mason jars of butter in the fridge. breakfast was always awesome.
Imagine if vodka were made with a delayed fuse so you could drink for a couple of hours with no effect and then BOOM you get the full effect. Now make it a sweet tasty delicious vodka with a delayed fuse...that's edible pot.
I never said you were. you are calling for nanny state legislation for edibles.Again, I ask you how many deaths were due to edibles when they were completely unregulated?What I am saying is that edibles pose a big problem...I've posted two articles showing the Colorado legislature agrees. I don't know what the answer is...edibles are going to some people up...and that has policy implications.
1000?
10,000?
100,000?
You did try to make the point of regulation by using Tylenol, which can still be abused even if regulated. Same with pot and THC. Yes it needs to be regulated. But using the ingestible argument like pot is of particular interest compared to other drugs... It is not. Perhaps even less so.
Last edited by pgardn; 04-10-2014 at 05:48 PM.
It takes a little bit longer then alcohol but not much but yes there is a delay of varying lengths.
There is no evidence that what you claim is a possibility in the case of the OP. It's the foundation of the point but the first sentence of the second paragraph:
It was one cookie and they do not know how much if any he ate. In your experiences of eating too much pot you didn't jump out of a window. That leads to the next question: what bad things? If you are trying to claim that eating pot makes you kill yourself then I am not buying it. Also Colorado has age limits, it's not available to the general public. Mass production requires a license as well.No one is sure how much Thamba ate of the marijuana cookie purchased by one of his friends at a local pot shop.
It's not an issue for potheads...now your offering these products to the general public. It's not going to take much bad press to get the federal govt and politicians of all stripes to give up on this experiment.
This is dumb. Unless you are giving yourself a vodka enema it takes time to metabolize alcohol too. I get that you are trolling but this is especially stupid.
Imagine if edible pot got you high quickly, then you kept eating it at a high rate for a couple of hours and it just ing killed you.
Then it would be like vodka.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
