Rolling Cannabis Politics Thread

Besides the Office of National Drug Control Policy, who funds opposition advertising? Someone said the cigarette companies spend a lot on opposition advertising, but I couldn't find any data to support that. Anyone here know?

cigarette companies are all broke I thought

I would not be surprised if it were religious people (cough cough Mormons). If there *were* a national vote, you bet the Mormon Church would do a Prop-8 style $$$$ push to shut that shit down. I promise.

are tobacco companies even allowed to spend campaign money? so many lawsuits/civil suits have crippled the industry

xp

If there *were* a national vote, you bet the Mormon Church would do a Prop-8 style $$$$ push to shut that shit down. I promise.

I can see this happening. at the same time, most of the country does not love Mormons, much less being told what to do by Mormons.

like what is the percentage that thinks Mormons aren't "really" Christians...? it's pretty high iirc

Well, sure, but it worked w/Prop 8, right?

And it's not like they would advertise, "WE, the MORMONS, want you to never smoke pot! And also we don't really have multiple wives. Brought to you by THE MORMONS."

Sponsored by the Mormons For Curtailing Your Fun Committee for America (c)

At any rate, this topic of converrsation ("will pot be legalized") always kind of feels like a mass funtime of projections of the speakers' pasts & desires. I, por ejemplo, would love for pot to be legalized, but grew up in a community where smoking weed was tantamount (in perceived riskiness & evilness) to smoking meth. This informs my perspective. I imagine someone who grew up in a less conservative area, or had pot-smoking parents, would have a more optimistic view. ANd someone who thinks weed is bad, and has never smoked it, would naturally be more inclined to say it's so not gonna happen. I feel in some ways like there's no way to know.

i suspect in my lifetime we will see the states where it's been cleared for medical purposes legalize it wholesale; everywhere else will be in sort of limbo between where we are now and full legalization

It seems to me that once it's become fully legalized in a few states, it'll be de facto legal everywhere. They can't exactly set up state border patrols to make sure you aren't buying in NJ and driving it up to NY, or whatever.

still pretty illegal in lots of europe, despite amsterdam

Europe's different

As far as I know, Prohibition was repealed everywhere all at once, but an interesting comparison might be individual state tax laws on vices. Technically, afaik, it's illegal to buy alcohol in NJ and then drive it into PA, but this obviously happens all the time, whenever someone in Cherry Hill picks up a bottle of wine and then drives to his friend's place in Philadelphia, and it's de facto legal. How can you enforce that kind of law?

wrt CA as an avowed pessimist the fact that they gathered the signatures still feels like found money, bottom line is i think the radius of 'public consciousness raising' for legalization hasn't extended nearly as far as the medical angle, which tbh still relies on compassion for the very very sick to get over (medical cannabis is not going away but it's still plenty begrudged among the majority of counties and municipalities). i mean i hope that's an antiguated view of how politics move in 2010 but yeah, prop 8. think we can just wipe away the culture of prohibition w/o at least will n' gracing it for a minute, it just can't be that easy, right?

yeah, i guess i would liken it blue laws around here. like, you would probably never ever be able to just pop by dispensary/ package store in the state of Tennessee and buy a nice bottle of wine and some white widow for your dinner party. but if you were pulled over and had an oz cops would just be like eh, whatever - as long as you aren't smokin & drivin (someone will obviously need to build some kind of breath-alizer for weed if it's ever to be legalized i'm guessing)

56% of CA supports legalizing weed as of a couple months ago

xxposts

shakey i posted a more recent poll upthread fwiw, but again i think it's too early to hang your hat on either one

Wish 538 would run something about it.

yeah I agree - margins are probably soft, and we haven't seen any marketing really get started yet

xp

As I indicated upthread, while there are still federal anti-drug laws and while Congress is dominated by anti-legalization sentiment (think Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennesee, ad infinitum), even if California voted to legalize pot, the Feds would be able to render that vote moot, by independent DEA raids, federal prosecutions, and what's worst, by almost certainly withholding vast amounts of federal funds for all kinds of stuff - from Medicaid to schools.

CA would relent within months.

It looks like the Federal government is moving away from enforcement, not towards it. It's hard to imagine Obama giving the order to resume the raiding. (I thought that had stopped, btw?)

yeah they have and Obama's made it explicitly clear that prosecuting marijuana is not a priority

Also, I don't know how this would actually play out politically, but with a right-wing totally committed to limiting federal power for probably the next six years, and a left-wing with a large group that is pro legalization, I can't see a lot of people pushing for federal enforcement.

no one's winning the White House with CA's votes either - state might take a dim view of a sitting president waging financial war against it, esp when it's in such dire straits already

withOUT CA's votes sorry

Hard to imagine there is anything a sitting Democratic president could do that would stop CA from voting for him. I think if Obama wanted to, he could act against CA's economic interests with more or less impunity.

just thinking of a president winning w/o CA makes me hear hoofbeats xp

a right-wing totally committed to limiting federal power

The right wing's commitment to limiting government definitely does not extend to the DEA, or to any action that could remotely be construed as "soft on drugs". One has only to look at the past 40 years to see this is true.

mainstream right-wingers still want pot smoking deadbeats in jail. limited federal intervention just means states can pass their own draconian laws against it, right?

Yes, but once you've opened the door to states passing their own draconian laws, you've also opened the door to some states totally legalizing it.

Nope. The argument would be that you can't have it legal in one state, because it would become a staging area for growing and then exporting pot to other states. Which is true enough.

CA needs a new cash crop!

It's time to return to an agrarian economy, dude.

I'm with Wm. F. Buckley on this issue. Ending pot prohibition makes sense to me in a dozen different ways. But legalization is not about to happen. Decriminalization of small amounts in self-selected places is the best you can get in the present climate.

if california successfully legalized it in a way that made a ton of $ for the state, I could imagine lots of things happening faster outside of california

Somewhat relevant: http://www.slate.com/id/2255385/

Review of new book about prohibition.

Colorado laws re dispensaries. Salon frames it as a positive ("Gov. Bill Ritter signs laws that could let hundreds of dispensaries continue to operate") tho ultimately it's going to involve places closing.

http://www.salon.com/news/medicine/index.html?story=/news/feature/2010/06/07/us_medical_marijuana

Legalization is in a large part a civil rights cause.

― Adam Bruneau, Monday, June 7, 2010 9:31 AM Bookmark

^ DING DING DING

btw, this is what their trying to get on the ballot in OR: http://cannabistaxact.org/

Just wanna say wrt legalization versus medical legalization, while I firmly believe that medical legalization is the door to full legalization, I also believe that medical legalization is itself an important battle. I've known many people suffer through ailments that were alleviated in a healthy safe way through medical marijuana and without stating it explicitly, it's an issue that hits very close to home as well. While there are a lot of treatments for certain illnesses + disorders, those treatments often come with side effects and shit like that, whereas marijuana can often really be a wonder drug.

someone happened to have posted this on fb while i was reading this thread: State Medical Marijuana Laws Are Getting Stricter

xp: otm

The weed (legally prescribed in NC) is what got my older sis thru many of her darkest cancer days - it was the only thing she could rely upon to counter the nauseating effect of chemo & morphine (& she tried LOTS of things).

to be fair tho, the couple of weeks i was on a morphine drip, it was the only thing keeping me sane, not sure pot would have done the trick

but pot counters the sort of nausea that is a common side effect of opiates (& chemotherapy, glaucoma, etc.) - I did not mean to suggest it was an alternative to the pain-relief provided by morphine etc.

I understand that there is a limited medical benefit for marijuana (like your chemo patient who relies on it just to be able to eat), so I'm pretty much with CA's Compassionate Use legislation.

Apart from that, I'm largely apathetic toward outright legalization. Right now in CA, all you need is a signed recommendation from a doctor (any doctor—doesn't have to be your primary care doc or even someone referred by them) and you can possess up to eight ounces, and even grow your own.

However, what's happening now is that anybody adult who has $50 and wants to smoke pot legally just goes to one of those "Dr. 420" places for an "evaluation" and picks one of the symptoms off the list.

I don't know what it is about that situation that bothers me, but I think it's the fact that people are exploiting laws designed to protect people with certain illnesses that I take issue with. Fraudulently claiming a medical condition because you want to party or make a buck is just terribly unethical.

I think if it were to be legal for medical use only, it should be treated like other medicines. Put into a pill form, maybe engineered to emphasize certain physiological effects while minimizing others. Take all the fun out of it, so to speak.

A cop I once worked a case with told me that marijuana is "only half-illegal", and he was right. I don't think it's even possible to buy a dime bag of schwag these days, as everybody (even some of the school kids I've worked with) can get access to dispensary weed.

Even though I have friends who still smoke and are decent people, I've also come across way too many "I think I actually drive better when I'm high" type assholes to think that if faced with "Legalize: Y/N" on my ballot, I wouldn't vote either way. I'd be way more inclined to vote in favor of it if there were a ton of restrictions alongside it, such as stronger DUI laws, laws against providing it to those under 21, and regulations on when and where it can be consumed.

pretty sure most of that stuff comes included, dude

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oDc--yrWQc

XP I know there would have to be rules, but I specifically meant strong legislation. I don't know if simply treating it like alcohol would go far enough.

I think RFKJ is high as a fucking kite most of the time, he was probably the whisperer that pushed this through

Opening the door for private equity to buy up weed operations and gut them.

https://scontent.fslc3-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/657155311_1858930625018500_8501602696881213279_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=13d280&_nc_ohc=D2ZkfF02UScQ7kNvwEFinuG&_nc_oc=Ado7fjC44QVQYZ93xSy2iw42kIglguKmnjgN4uhOY6UyIOtEqYScy4c36TsHLYJteTdhy09YtEyOJk1iDQBDx5Pf&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent.fslc3-2.fna&_nc_gid=n_T9j4JtO8tbtTqL0Pmkhw&_nc_ss=7a32e&oh=00_AfzCXflQvG0VReIIDn37HoLPaRmhGKYeFnZzuPm2ady34A&oe=69C7CF92

the interesting thing about this to me is that ptsd symptoms and depression don't seem to be measurably improved by cannabis (which tracks with my personal experience tbh). that and cannabis use disorder is a real danger.

it seems like other psychedelics have more potential when it comes to alleviating ptsd, anxiety and depression afaict. lsd in particular had a notable effect on improving depression in a recent study i saw that i can't recall?

of course thc/cbd definitely helps with certain kinds of pain.

i'm noticing the drawbacks more and more of my own use.

i'm pretty evenly split on the times it makes me less anxious vs more anxious. that wide range with it sort of favoring less anxious but insignificantly so feels familiar to me.

i haven't read the full study, just a precis, so i think depression may be covered in another section. probably worth taking the time to look through the whole thing.

can you link that article?

don't bogart that article, my friend

ok so the image came across my facebook feed, (i know, a fount of reliable info), from william wallace a generally reliable source on health. i don't have a gift link to the study itself unfortch. this is his summary fwiw:

The largest review of medicinal cannabis for mental health just published in The Lancet Psychiatry.
54 randomized controlled trials spanning 1980 to 2025. 2,477 participants. Nine psychiatric conditions. Every outcome GRADE-assessed.
The results are in the figure. Most of the confidence intervals cross the null line. Anxiety, PTSD, psychosis, opioid use disorder: no significant effect versus placebo across any primary outcome. For depression, there was not a single RCT to analyze. It is one of the top reasons cannabis is prescribed and it has never been tested in a controlled trial.
Where signals did emerge: cannabis use disorder, device-measured sleep time in insomnia (the only moderate-certainty finding in the entire review), and tic severity in Tourette's (combined CBD and THC only). Autistic traits showed a reduction, but both contributing studies had high risk of bias.
One finding went the wrong direction. Cannabinoids increased cocaine craving compared to placebo.
Across all conditions, cannabinoid users were 75% more likely to experience an adverse event than placebo. For every 7 people treated, 1 experienced a side effect that wouldn't have occurred on placebo.
27% of adults aged 16 to 65 in the US and Canada report using cannabis medically. About half are using it for mental health. More than a dozen US states list PTSD as a qualifying condition for medical marijuana. Interestingly, the regulatory framework approved the product before the trials were run.
Cannabis has legitimate therapeutic applications. Epilepsy. MS spasticity. Certain pain conditions. The evidence there is real. But for the conditions millions of people are actually using it to treat, the RCT evidence either shows no effect (to this point) or doesn't exist, yet.

sorry for any mischaracterization in my words above i am not exactly good at reading and interpreting this stuff.

Here's the study.

thanks!

Feel like this has always been the weakness of the medical cannabis argument, that it rests almost entirely on self-reported anecdote. Of course I think everyone has understood that the medical campaign was mostly a way to get legalization on the political map, kind of a stalking horse. Now that so many states have legal weed regardless of prescription, it seems like it's still useful to figure out what conditions cannabis is actually beneficial for, so these kinds of studies are helpful. But the bigger thing is just that a lot of people enjoy getting kinda high. (Me too!)

Anyway, if RFK Jr. can roll back the clock to the "wine is good for you actually" argument despite evidence to the contrary, I won't gainsay anyone asserting the medical benefits of weed.

One thing I have found weed to help me with is IBS. I guess the muscle relaxant aspect is what does it. And it's no solution, just provides a few hours of relief...would have to be high 24/7, which is obv not on, but during a flare up it can help, and ends up being less risky than imodium (which can easily bring me too far in the other direction). Never heard anyone else mention this.

it induces peristalsis!

so yeah totally. see also, giving cancer patients an appetite when on chemo

map that is a super interesting study, thanks

Interesting. I have fairly mild lifelong IBS, and I've just never paid attention to whether cannabis improves it. Although my symptoms tend to hit earlier in the day, and cannabis use tends to be evenings-only, so maybe I wouldn't notice.

Those videos you see of it affecting dramatic changes in certain conditions are impressive. Heck, my wife told me half of the discussions on one of the mom groups she frequents is about menopausal women relying on edibles to get a good night's sleep; for sure it seems more calming than alcohol before bed. On the other hand, I remember when my MIL had glaucoma and looked into cannabis, and she found she'd basically have to be high all the time for it to make a slight difference.

Findings of that study not a particular shock, imo. There is just so much going on chemically that I imagine even if it had clear benefits it would be really difficult to isolate them, which aiui is one of the reasons it's been relegated to the schedule 1 category, not that it is on par with heroin or whatever but because there was no clear, consistent medical application (i.e. take x mgs for y result). It's probably more akin to multivitamins and whatnot in terms of nebulous effects and benefits, but because it's psychotropic it's not like you can safely shelve it at GNC or whatever.

One thing I have found weed to help me with is IBS. I guess the muscle relaxant aspect is what does it. And it's no solution, just provides a few hours of relief...would have to be high 24/7, which is obv not on, but during a flare up it can help, and ends up being less risky than imodium (which can easily bring me too far in the other direction). Never heard anyone else mention this.

― a ZX spectrum is haunting Europe (Daniel_Rf), Tuesday, March 24, 2026 5:33 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

i have heard it helps a lot with crohn's.