Why do you think Marijuana is taboo and alcohol not?

"

faerwin wrote:

You kind of quoted me out of context here.

What I meant by "drinking won't cause harm to others" is that outside of the possible actions caused by the person that's drunk, nothing negative can happen to others whereas with marijuana (and anything that's smoked), you'll have secondary smoke that's directly linked to all kind of negatives consequences for anyone that breath air that got contaminated with it.

In other words, marijuana cause harm even through inaction of the person that's consuming it.

But that's only if it's smoked. That's not the only method of consumption. Out of context or not you're simplifying it to only smoking vs drinking which just isn't the case.

"

Shovelcut wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

You kind of quoted me out of context here.

What I meant by "drinking won't cause harm to others" is that outside of the possible actions caused by the person that's drunk, nothing negative can happen to others whereas with marijuana (and anything that's smoked), you'll have secondary smoke that's directly linked to all kind of negatives consequences for anyone that breath air that got contaminated with it.

In other words, marijuana cause harm even through inaction of the person that's consuming it.

But that's only if it's smoked. That's not the only method of consumption. Out of context or not you're simplifying it to only smoking vs drinking which just isn't the case.

I did specify the context. I deliberately avoided talking about ingestion because I do not know the effects of this intake method.

That said, I'm fairly positive that smoking marijuana is by far the most frequent use of the narcotic.

"

faerwin wrote:

@Boem

The thing is that alcohol can only brings direct arm to the one that consume it whereas there's a lot of harm done with secondary smoke from cigarettes and the likes.

Now, of course you can do harm to others while under the influence of alcohol (duch a drunk driving and the likes) but you'll notice that there is a lot of awareness being raised to those.

Someone that drink is able to cause no harm to anyone else than himself (if the person drink too much). A smoker can't due to the very nature of secondary smoke being very harmful for anyone that breath it. It's especially true of parents that smoke in the house when they have children(s) (which is something that I've been exposed to for my whole life). Sometimes, I wonder how badly damaged my lungs are from this, despite having never smoked anything...

While your logic is sound, you mention it yourself, a lot of people get hurt under the influence of alcohol.
I wouldn't want to know the number of people driving home drunk etc...

As for the "you damage others while smoking near them" that just falls under responsible intoxication use.

Similar to deciding to have a person not drink to drive you home, there is nothing preventing people from stepping outside to take a smoke like i have been doing my entire life.

It's telling that both cause secondary harm but you would "defend" or "downwash" one while not the other.
While in my perception both are of the same strokes and the secondary harm depends entirely on the responsibility of the user while considering the ones around him.

It's like me putting forth the argument that a glass beer bottle is capable of killing a person while a cigarette paper is not.

just compare the way you build up your argument. Smoking in the house is bad for the ones around, while driving somebody to death while under the influence of alcohol "happens" but you don't seem to put the same weight on that.

Peace,

-Boem-

edit :

to compare it to my initial post, why is there no picture of a car driving a child to death on my beer bottles? It's for awareness sake right? So why not be upfront about it like on tabaco containers.

"

Boem wrote:

Peace,

-Boem-

Just with your username I'm pretty sure you use marijuana very often.

"

diablofdb wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

Peace,

-Boem-

Just with your username I'm pretty sure you use marijuana very often.

I don't.

Peace,

-Boem-

One of the things you can actually blame racism for.

"

faerwin wrote:

I deliberately avoided talking about ingestion because I do not know the effects of this intake method.

The body metabolizes it in a different way, delta-9 THC (the main active chemical compound of smoked cannabis) gets turned into 11-hydroxy-THC in the liver which can pass the blood-brain barrier more easily. Through this process it becomes much more psychoactive. By far it's the most potent way of consumption. A majority of the people who have to be hospitalized due to cannabis can attribute it to taking too much edibles. It won't cause death, but it can cause some severe discomfort, nausea and dizziness.

Also, vaporizers have become a norm the past 5+ years and it's probably just as common as smoking. It also produces no second-hand smoke to effect others around you.

If you want to further compare the dangers of alcohol and cannabis, just know that it's damn near physically impossible to overdose on cannabis. The LD50 of cannabis is something like the equivalent of smoking 1,500 lbs of cannabis in the time span of 15 minutes. Even if you were eating it you'd likely force yourself into a "weed nap" before you reach toxic levels.

While there might not be any warning on beer bottles, I've seen quite a lot of commercials about it both online and on television. It's also because that battle is mostly won and as such isn't exactly useful to keep hammering that nail so to speak.

Smoking, on the other hand, is still happening widely although it is on the decline.


Don't get me wrong though, drunk driving is far far far worse than smoking can be.


As for not putting them on equal weight, it's probably just a perception from the way I presented it. The effects of alcohol are very widely known and because of that, I felt that it wasn't necessary to present them in the discussion. The effects of smoked marijuana however are far less known (especially with all the disinformation that say it's good for you).

"

Shovelcut wrote:

Sadly, edibles are the main reason people are hospitalized because of cannabis. It's hard to know how much you've taken and it's extremely easy to take too much because of it's slow onset. It's difficult to get a consistent potency from batch to batch due to the way the plant is matured, it's genetics and even the way it's cured.

A lot of that still has to do with its current quasi-legal status.

Not understanding it is certainly due to a lack of familiarity. Compare alongside a lot of people's first times "going out drinking" and ending up completely hammered due to quickly downing 3+ pints, having a strongly onset impairment, and then drinking some more. Compare alongside two people with different body mass drinking the same amount.

Imperfect batches are due to small scale productions. Consistent potency can easily be attained in the same way that consistent ABV can be obtained.

None of this points to fatal errors in the concept of edibles/drinkables; no more than the existing errors in alcohol drinkables.

"

pneuma wrote:

Imperfect batches are due to small scale productions. Consistent potency can easily be attained in the same way that consistent ABV can be obtained.

True if you're using clones or working with a F1 strain but if your supply of clones or seeds goes away, so does your consistency. Maturity and curing also have a lot to do with this as I mentioned.

Even with stable strains and healthy clones, there can be quite a large variance in the end product. The dispensaries in states where it's legal have to send samples from each batch to be tested for THC/CBD levels (for labeling purposes) because of this.

Not saying it can't be done, just that it would almost require a high dollar laboratory/grow room and an extremely high attention to detail to get as consistent of an end product compared to factory produced alcohol.

"

pneuma wrote:

None of this points to fatal errors in the concept of edibles/drinkables; no more than the existing errors in alcohol drinkables.

Oh I fully agree, I was just pointing out that it's much harder to get a consistent (enough for regulatory purposes) results when it comes to edibles/drinkables than it is to distill alcohol if we're talking about selling in a store/bar/whatever. :)