[frankbreetz]

>>He added that marijuana use needs more research.

I wish that we had this same attitude towards chemicals sprayed on crops where it seems to be everything is fine until proven to be harmful. Yet with weed it is harmful until proven safe. Also, I suspect there is plenty of research on the safety of weed

edit: to all of those arguing that there may be/ are dangers to weed, I don't disagree. How about the fact that I can choose to not ingest weed, I have to eat and it is quite difficult to find disclosures about chemicals sprayed on the food available, and many of these chemical have been researched far less then weed.

[jolux]

As someone who is extremely pro-legalization (and pro-decriminalization of all drugs) I still think this is perfectly reasonable. We know rough bounds on the safety of cannabis/THC (probably safer than tobacco and alcohol, probably not a good idea if you have a family history of schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, or if you’re very young) but we don’t really know in depth what the long-term effects are like, for different doses, different age groups, different comorbidities, etc. The government more or less forbid researching this subject for a long time, and the environment is still relatively hostile to it. The research is young.

[villasv]

> The research is young.

GP didn't say research on weed wasn't needed, the point is obvious double standards and that agtech should be - but isn't - this thorough (or more, actually, but that's beside the point). So what is notable here is that this call for research doesn't come from being reasonable, it comes from partiality with plausible deniability.

[jolux]

They said there was probably already research on weed’s safety. I would argue that research is promising re: safety but more is definitely needed. I agree that this isn’t reason to delay legalization, but it’s still something that should happen.

[handmodel]

Yeah I don't really see any error in the logic of making it safe but also wanting studies on it.

Studies on it were very hard to do for years because it was a controlled substance. I do enjoy edibles (probably do them once a month) and in my case I am 100% sure it has changed my memory somewhat. I'm ok with that risk because I do enjoy it but I would like to know more about people who have been doing this for decades.

[FrenchTouch42]

"changed my memory" what do you mean by this?

[handmodel]

I have a weaker memory than I used to - and definitely feel extra hazy for the 4-5 days immediately after use.

I think its possible some of it is just me getting older? But there are plenty of studies out there which suggest some link here so it wouldn't surprise me.

[int_19h]

We do need more research, sure - but in the absence of such, the default stance should be permissive, not restrictive (in general, not just for cannabis).

[tehjoker]

This is a common tactic to simply delay an unwanted bill without providing a substantive reason why. Nothing further should be read into it.

[raxxorrax]

I think legalization would also provide a lot of safety. Not only because there is stuff that shouldn't be in there, today's weed isn't comparable to that of the 60s and I don't think that is good.

It has been cultivated for yielding extreme levels of THC. It isn't just some weed anymore that induces a small high, it is extremely psychoactive an can easily cause psychosis. Problem is you cannot really determine how much THC you consumed. Your are either stoned or stoned, so high dosages aren't really needed anyway.

I think with legalization you could limit these values to more healthy values again.

[duxup]

I don't disagree but I do think if we're talking about smoking something we do want to find out if it has any of the associated risks smoking tobacco does. There are similarities and differences and as far as I know not a good conclusion on that topic.

[kube-system]

Putting any burnt solids in your lungs is almost certainly bad. However, this bill isn't about smoking, it's about possession and commercialization.

[jimbob45]

And you could certainly create a nuanced bill that understands that weed edibles don't share any risk of lung cancer with smoked weed.

[josephcsible]

In general, inhaling chemical compounds is more dangerous than ingesting them (e.g., vitamin E acetate). Also, the dose makes the poison, and don't we try to wash off most of what we spray on crops?

[UI_at_80x24]

>Also, the dose makes the poison, and don't we try to wash off most of what we spray on crops?

You absolutely SHOULD wash everything before you put it in your body, but there are a lot of chemicals that plants can/do absorb that can't be washed off.

Example: RoundUp

RoundUp sprayed onto a field will cause the plants to dry out. Intended purpose: Spray this on the weeds to kill them. Unintended usage: Is your wheat/corn/soybeans still wet because it's raining during harvest? Douse the field in Roundup, and the crop will dry out while still covered in water.

You end up ingesting it, because it's INSIDE the corn/wheat/soybeans. BUT it doesn't end there, think about the thousands of products that the corn/soybeans/wheat gets processed into.

You can't wash a loaf of bread.