Liberals vote to legalize marijuana

[monty slick]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...on-sunday.html

It will get more voters out, but I don't know why they've now suddenly decided this is a good idea. I lied, I know why. LOL politics, anything for power.

[Derfel]

It probably makes sense in a revenue-generating sort of way, especially during economic downtimes?

[Sweetlou]

[ugly]

I'm not sure if I posted this in the science articles thread, but I'll post it here. Most people probably saw it somewhere by now anyway: Occasional pot use won't hurt lungs, study suggests

Lighting up a joint or hitting the bong a few times a month doesn't seem to damage the lungs as much as smoking does, a new study finds.

That's not to say, of course, that marijuana is some kind of wonder drug: there do appear to be health risks to heavy pot smoking – that is, smoking a joint or two a day for several years.
But the study's main findings back what many pot lovers have said for years: occasional pot use doesn't do the kind of lung damage that smoking does.

The researchers behind the 20-year-long study can't say for sure why pot smoking doesn't hurt lung function as much as cigarette smoking does. But it's likely because pot users tend to smoke much less than cigarette smokers do.

Indeed, median tobacco use among the smokers was 8 to 9 cigarettes a day; median pot use, meanwhile, was just 2 to 3 times a month

They then assessed the volunteers' lung function using a test that measures how much air their lungs could hold, as well the maximum rate of air flow the volunteers could push out of their lungs.

Not surprisingly, cigarette smokers fared poorly in the tests. The more they smoked over time or had smoked in their life, the worse their lungs performed on both tests.

But among the moderate pot smokers, "we found no evidence that increasing exposure to marijuana adversely affects pulmonary function," the researchers write.

In fact, occasional pot smokers actually showed improvements in the two measurements of lung function over the study course, though the improvements were quite small.

The study authors said it's possible that because pot users tend to breathe in deeply when they inhale, they regularly stretch and strengthen their lung tissue. The lung function tests in the study are designed to assess exactly the kind of deep breathing that marijuana smokers are used to.

But improvements in lung function decline with heavy pot use. Those who smoked pot more than 20 times a month saw a decline in lung capacity over the study period. But it took until seven "joint-years" -- a joint or a bong a day for seven years or 1 joint/week for 49 years – before their lung function test started to decline.

Although, the conclusion that it 'does less damage because they smoke less' is kind of obvious.

But really, legalizing marijuana seems to make sense. The government can bring in huge amounts of money on it, instead of spending huge amounts of money trying to stop it (and failing terribly at it). The harm from its use seems to be minimal. I'd guess that more harm comes from crimes related to drug dealing than comes from use.

One potential problem, might be driving while stoned. I really have no idea how they deal with it now. I don't know of any type of breathalyzer that detects for marijuana.

[Xzinum]

[monty slick]

I think there's a saliva test for TCH for the potential charge of driving while impaired. I guess there's already a quantity stipulated to separate trace from impaired amounts.

For the original reason I posted... it's good that a federal political party will finally wise-up to their constituents' wishes but does it have to only happen when they're looking up from the bottom of the pit of despair?

[Xzinum]

I think there's a saliva test for TCH for the potential charge of driving while impaired. I guess there's already a quantity stipulated to separate trace from impaired amounts.

For the original reason I posted... it's good that a federal political party will finally wise-up to their constituents' wishes but does it have to only happen when they're looking up from the bottom of the pit of despair?

The only accurate (and relatively cost effective) way that i know of is with a hair sample. Normal blood screening done in most hospitals is only qualitative rather than quantitative, which renders it pretty useless. Quantitative blood screening can take weeks to come back with results, they are normally sent to Toronto for analysis.

[0ptik]

IMO, its a cheap way to get votes.

[Sweetlou]

what do you call that crunked with a side of dubstep?

[Mike-KT]

It won't (or shouldn't) ever happen unless the USA lets up on its war on drugs. The delays at the boarder that would come from this would be a huge reason why.

I also don't think this would generate significant revenue. In order to generate governmental revenue, overall costs including taxes would need to be the same or lower as current prices (which are inflated due to the risk premium and low supply). A properly regulated system would require oversight over production, packaging and distribution. It would take years to set this up, and all at a price that would encourage consumers to buy through legal channels instead of the current underground system that already is in place.

It's possible, but I don't see this being the goldmine for government revenues that people have told me it would be.