supernal

This is really cool. Thanks for sharing!

Here's my thought process. Why not legalize marijuanna? At least then the government could tax it. Boom, more money for the guvment. Not to mention is you regulate it like they're supposed to be regulating drinking I don't see an issue. If you've smoked a blunt, don't drive.

Neat Story though.

Also, fun fact: Marijuanna is an insurable crop in California. The Federal Crop insurance program is regulated by the government. So the government is already willing to keep marijuanna farms running. (To be fair they're farms growing them specifically for medicinal purposes.) People joke around, oh this is never gonna happen, but it's a lot more realistic than folks think.

Incidentally, if the government is totally okay pushing cigarettes and snuff and tobacco products forward, which are known carcinogens, then why not legalize marijuana? Especially after info like this.

anywho, cool story <3

Because anyone can grow marijuana, anywhere.

It wouldn't be a cash crop. It would be like green beans and okra -- people could grow them in their backyard. That is the -only- reason the government wont legalize it; it can't guarantee it's share of the profit.

But people do that now anyway. You've got lots of folks who love growing tomatoes in their backyards, but the government still manages to regulate and tax it. I'm not implying it would be a perfect system...it's a government system, it's going to have flaws. Also, I'm not only talking about insuring and taxing the big crop I'm talking about: you walk into your local wal-mart, roll up to the cigarette counter. "Uhm yeah, I'll take a pack of purple sticky punch." Beep! That'll be X$." I'm thinking we tax that as well. Theoretically people could grow Tobacco in their back yards, but the convenience of getting it at the store outweighs the cheaper, more lengthy alternative.

I dunno.

I think old Uncle Sam would find a way to make a profit off of it.

Alex is right, I feel. In an awesome way, it'd get rid of the corner drug dealer, because not only can a person grow it for much cheaper than said dealer, and more importantly the government can as well. So eff all that mess. Now along with what Alex said in terms of convenience, because aside from the hemp plant being a rugged grower it still takes some finesse and special equipment . . . let me think of the right way to say this. Government marijuana tends to be stronger, and can come in more exotic forms (see thc oil drops and the like) that your average consumer likely wouldn't bother dealing with himself.

The trade could be EXTREMELY lucrative. I'm certain of it.

Then why the hell don't they just legalize and market it? Is it the tabacco companies trying to keep their title?

I found this article really interesting. Dealing with MRSA on a daily basis and all, it does raise some questions. I mean, they can use different variants to increase hunger, why not use it for this, too!

Originally Posted by Fable

Then why the hell don't they just legalize and market it? Is it the tabacco companies trying to keep their title?

I think it's that and the whole 'drug' stigma.

For the record, I don't participate in hxc or even recreational use of marijuanna, however, I feel if you're going to legalize and allow alcohol (which kills brain cells <---one of the reasons some folks are arguing pot shouldn't be legalized) and tobacco (a proven carcinogen) then why not allow it?

Because it's bad to drive high? It's also bad to drive drunk.

Family Guy had an interesting episode on this a while back and actually explained (albeit from a rather passionate and imo annoying perspective) the reasons Big Business doesn't want the government to legalize mass production of the canabis plant. Had to do with hemp and how it could be used to make clothes, ropes, fibers, blah blah.

Alcohol does not kill brain cells. Moderate alcohol consumption, as opposed to alcohol abuse and not drinking alcohol at all, has been studied as either improving or sustaining longevity and cognition into old age.

I was under the impression that when abused to excess it could kill brain cells. Of course, this could very likely have been some anti-liquor propaganda I was exposed to.

@Fable: That is correct. Not only would it undermine the tobacco empire, it would undermine the timber industry as well. You can make hemp paper, and hemp plants mature in 3 months, rather than the 50 years it takes trees to reach maturity. You can also make rope and clothing out of it, and that's just the commercial impact it would have, as an aside from the array of health benefits it'd give.

@Desolate: Too right, too right.

@Paradigm: You're right, and that's what Damon said. When abused, it does kill brain cells. But something like one shot a day will actually improve memory and cognitive ability. The issue being that it's very easy to abuse alcohol, and to over-dose on it, while impossible to over-dose on MJ.

Ah alright, yeah I didn't mean to suggest that any use of alcohol was killing brain cells, my bad. I've also heard that a glass of red wine at night helps your heart-rate, or something along those lines.

Extreme alcohol abuse can interfere with dendrites, inhibiting communication between neurons. However, when one stops drinking too much, any damage is reversed. Furthermore, it can stop neurogenesis, the production of new brain cells, but this is also temporary and reversed by simply chilling out on the alcohol consumption.

As for the death of neurons, this only occurs in Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, which happens when someone habitually abuses alcohol. However, the alcohol itself is does not cause neuron death; it plays a role, but in causing vitamin B1 deficiency, which is the ultimate cause of neuron death.

This all applies to alcohol as we drink it and how it interacts with our body through the bloodstream. Obviously, if you pour pure alcohol over a cluster of brain cells in a petri dish, they'll die.

True, and I'm not saying alcohol is harmless. It's clearly not, but drug abuse of any kind is unhealthy. With that said, marijuana is relatively harmless.

I know this discussion is fairly dead and I'm a little late on it, but I can tell you why the government won't legalize it. You can't regulate it like you can regulate alcohol.

Drug tests take hours to process, sometimes even days. There isn't a simple and easy test, like a breathalyzer, that you can use to determine someone's level of high. If a cop pulls someone over and notes they have glassy eyes, and smell pot, they even see the substance sitting next to them, they can't prove that they are above the legal limit and they have no authority to inflict any kind of ramifications.

Should they detain them for a few hours while their piss gets tested? Do they take a blood sample, let them drive off and send them a ticket in the mail?

Weed is no more dangerous than alcohol, that being said people in cars high or drunk are equally as dangerous to everyone else.

I don't know how those questions prevent legalization. Yes, detain them. No, do not let them drive off. Driving while impaired by any drug, such as Nyquil, can result in legal punishment. BAC isn't always used to charge people with DUI and they often use standard field sobriety testing. If someone who is high is in fact driving while impaired, the impairment should be evident during an SFST.