Skip to main content

US121 - Weak Weed

Widely available marijuana that gets you just a little high would be pretty safe and soak up most American demand for the product. With a mediocre legal product, most people would not have enough incentive to jump into the illegal market. This would keep our citizens law-abiding, cut the illegal market off at the knees, and likely keep people from harder drugs (a big reason why marijuana is a gateway is that you're already breaking the law and know a dealer). We would save money on law enforcement and add to the economy and tax revenues.

A strain of marijuana has already been created that provides medicinal benefits but doesn't get you high. It is very possible to create regulated strains of marijuana at controlled levels of psychoactive strength.

What do you think?


Propose and discuss policy ideas for the 99% at Join us!

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Wouldn't people just smoke more of it? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slowbutsure, splashy, too many people

    Inhailing more tar in the process.

    •  Do You Get Tar From the Smokeless Heaters? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slowbutsure, shaharazade, Mentatmark

      (sorry, 40 years out of date on the technology).

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 05:23:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A bit more if it's legal, but people wouldn't... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek, dewley notid, too many people

      get too crazy about weak weed.

      To me, marijuana should be legal as a matter of personal freedom and because the war on drugs is a waste.

      This seems to be a way to put the FDA in control of the problem.

    •  not necessarily. (5+ / 0-)

      When I was in high school, there were basically four grades of pot around:   Ditch weed, Mexican, Jamaican, and Columbian.  

      These ranged in price from $10/ounce to $40/ounce, and the strength went up at approximately double the rate at which the cost went up.  So you had to smoke a couple of bowls of ditch weed to get high, but only a few tokes of Columbian.  

      From what I can remember, people didn't smoke a ton of ditch weed to get the same high they'd get from smoking the stronger stuff.  Very often it was a kind of social ritual: passing the pipe around, or passing a joint around, and then going on with whatever socializing was on the agenda.

      I think the same thing would probably happen today if various strengths were made available.  Sure, there would be some people who would smoke and smoke and smoke and smoke until they were surrounded by a cloud of blue haze and their eyes were red.  But most wouldn't: any more than most people drink huge quantities of beer and wine to get rip-roaring drunk.  

      Any drug will have its abusers, but in general, a range of strengths reduce abuse potential for the majority of users.

      "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 05:50:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Are you against legalization generally? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      What is particularly terrible about this idea?

      •  It violates my freedom. (4+ / 0-)

        Man was given every plant for his use.

      •  what i would propose is... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GregOrr, rivercard, ChuckInReno

        .... to have a range of mild to moderate strengths available OTC, and then reserve the really strong stuff for prescription under FDA Schedule III.

        I'll tell you, I'm kinda' scared by the modern super-potent stuff that's so strong you can get high by just being in a room where someone is smoking it.  Understood this stuff is highly useful in the medical sense, where a single toke is all that's needed to immediately stop nausea or a cluster headache.  

        But that kind of strength is a risk to recreational users: because the social rituals around pot-smoking will lead to the risk of getting much more stoned, and that in turn leads to a risk of developing a problematic relationship with the substance.

        If I had to guess, I'd say that maximum OTC strength should be in about the range where someone who smokes moderately (anywhere from once a month to a few times a week) would have to smoke maybe five tokes to get moderately high, and maybe ten to get very very high.

        With that kind of strength available OTC, the social usage would adjust somewhat, and demand for illicit access to stronger stuff would be minimal.  

        Meanwhile, medical patients could get strong stuff on prescription.  Some of that would probably find its way to recreational users, but in doing so, would make it unprofitable for global drug cartels to supply.  

        "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

        by G2geek on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 05:59:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Good thoughts ... contribute to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Pretty persuasive way of laying it out.

          I built (with my own time and money) as a platform for the 99% to propose, discuss, and vote on public policy ideas.

          Any thoughts on the site?

          •  i've got my hands full here..... (0+ / 0-)

            .... but I'd suggest you can pick up a pretty big audience by posting regular diaries here.  Cross-post them on your site for continued discussion and specific policy proposals, and you'll have the best of both worlds.

            "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

            by G2geek on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 10:27:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Why should the government (6+ / 0-)

          control what strength one smokes? Bejeesus alcohol runs the gamut. You can drink low alcohol content wine or extremely high proof hard liquor. You've got it ass backward the ritual of smoking or drinking alcohol at parties or social situations is not just to go through the motions it's a lubricant a way to come together over a altered mind set. It's the recreation in recreational drugs.

          There are always going to be people who abuse substances be they alcohol, prescription drugs, pot,  whatever their poison. Like the gun nuts say it's not the drugs but the.....I guess I'm personally a little to legally lubricated to get in a huff but you surely know what I mean.

          Weak crap marijuana is really unpleasant. It does make your eyes water and fill a room with blue smoke. Why would this be a good thing smoking with none of the beneficial effects? Hey people like to get high, nothing wrong with that. Much better to let them smoke what they prefer then let the FDA regulate what brand is allowed.

          The same FDA that pushes drugs from big pharma that God only knows what they do to the imbibers brains and claim to be medicine. Gimmie pot anytime over  the chemical stews the FDA allows to be pushed on people looking to get some relief. To each his own as far as drugs go and by the way nobody smokes pot unless they want to get high.


          •  stronger versions of drugs.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            .... are more likely to cause substance abuse syndromes.

            Earl Gray tea vs. Starbucks Super-Dupers.

            Pipe tobacco & cigars vs. cigarettes.

            Coca tea vs. powder cocaine vs. crack.

            Adderall vs. meth.


            "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

            by G2geek on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 10:30:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I agree some of this new stuff is (0+ / 0-)

          extremely strong. It makes the vaunted Thai Stick of my youth seem mild.

          I am for legalization across the board , but like the idea of having varying strengths available.

          Anecdotally , I have noticed/heard of people having  more issues with panic , paranoia and such with the super potent strains. Honestly just doesn't seem as much fun. But, to each their own.

          •  and i've seen more people get... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            .... way over-their-heads dependent on recreational MJ with the super-potent strains than with the stuff that people were smoking when I was a kid.  

            As in, smoking it every few hours, just to keep their heads on their shoulders.  

            That's too much.

            Hardly as dangerous to self & others as alcoholism of course, but none the less, it does cause problems.

            "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

            by G2geek on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 10:33:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  That makes sense -- but is still silly. (5+ / 0-)

          There's a lot of BS about how pot has become insanely strong, almost all of which is false.  Marijuana hasn't increased massively in potency since the 70s or whenever -- it's just that the metric used to has changed.  It used to be that THC concentrations were measured as a percentage of the entire amount of plant material -- generally, flowers, but sometimes the entire damned plant, including all of the useless parts.  Nowadays, when you see the THC content listed on medical marijuana, it's the percentage of the resin that's THC -- two completely different things.  It's like measuring the amount of vitamin C in an orange versus the amount averaged over the entire orange tree.

          The reality is that the only people 'endangered' by high-potency weed are those who are extremely novice smokers -- and even then, they just risk getting blized and possibly greened-out and puking and feeling miserable for a few hours, or eating all of the munchies in the house and crashing on the couch for half the day.  Studies have shown that people with some experience smoking tend to titrate their dose until they get to a certain, desired point, and then they stop smoking.  So -- people will often smoke ditch weed by the bongful, but the same people only roll thin 'pinners' of high-quality weed, or pack little bowls full, or just take a couple of hits off a normal-sized joing ot good weed and then save the rest for later.

          There is also, of course, the fact that the cannabinoid concentration in any strain of marijuana - or even plants within that strain -- can vary widely.  If you pick a plant a week early or a week late, things are going to be significantly different.  Someone might grow some weed that measured under the 'OTC' levels -- and then grow out a clone of that plant, genetically identical, but this time the grower knows what he's doing 'cause he has some practice, and it's killer weed and over the OTC limit.

          Then of course there's the fact that individual sensitivity to THC and other cannabinoids may vary radically -- take two novice smokers, and one might get blitzed on one joint of mids, while the other isn't really high at all.  Similarly, because of tolerance, a heavy smoker will require more weed to get to the same high than a light smoker will, generally.  

          I would say that it's too complex and variant to regulate with simple 'if you have a THC content under X.XX%, it's legal, if it's over that, it's not.'  Additionally, as I mentioned before, it doesn't seem like a problem that needs solving.  It's not like booze, where if you don't know that you're drinking everclear instead of stoli's, you're gonna die.  

          Now, I would like to see guaranteed minimum cannabinoid levels labeled on any commercially grown and sold products, but that's so that people can select what they want, not so that it can regulated in the way that you describe.

          •  what's greened-out, and what's this about puking? (0+ / 0-)

            Say more, I don't know the scene these days.

            "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

            by G2geek on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 10:35:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  green-out == marijuana 'OD'. (0+ / 0-)

              I think the community basically had to come up with another word besides 'overdose', because overdose conveys that death or serious injury is a possibility.

              If someone imbibes a lot of weed, the results can be less than pleasant.  The world can spin, you can get nauseous and wind up puking, you feel hot and gross, or you can just pass out -- it's not all that dissimilar to overindulging in alcohol, with the major exception being that one isn't going to die from it, or even feel all that terrible the next morning (though you certainly can get a 'smoker's hangover.')  I do think that part of the puking problem might be exascerbated by overindulgence in munchies, but that's just from my own experience.

              There's also some talk online of a weird syndrome where regular smokers start being nauseated by (some) types of pot, even though they're experienced smokers using accustomed methods and amounts.  All the information that I've heard on this is anecdotal, and seems to imply that if one does run into this problem, it can be worked around by finding a strain that you don't have this reaction to.  I have a feeling that this relates to certain cannabinoids ratios or even a reaction to certain terpenes, but again, AFAIK, no real research seems to have been done on the subject.

              Anyway, this is one of the reasons that smoking and vaping pot are generally considered the best delivery methods -- inhaled marijuana generally takes effect very quickly, and once you get close to being 'too high,' you stop.  Edibles and marinol pills, however, don't allow that -- which is one of the primary negative points about these method of delivery, it's a lot more likely to get you too high, particularly since it can take a long time to kick in and the inexperienced might decide to take another dose.  Inhaled marijuana experiences are also shorter -- you're only high for a couple of hours instead of six to twelve, as can happen with edibles.  That enhanced duration is great if you've got the dose dialed down pat, but it can be utterly miserable if you wind up eating far too many special brownies.

              ...Of course, massive bong-hits and such can lead to a pot 'OD', particularly if you're a noob or just wind up getting significantly more potent pot than you're used to.  This tends to be a self-correcting situation, though -- once people go through the misery of a marijuana OD, they tend to take steps to ensure they don't go through that again.  It's a learning experience, unpleasant but unremarkable.

              I hope that helps.  :)

        •  What if they don't WANT to have to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Carol in San Antonio

          Have 5 tokes? They would rather have one and stop, because they have a lung issue that means they don't want much smoke in there?

          I prefer it to be like alcohol. Different strengths and people learn to self-regulate.

          Women create the entire labor force.

          by splashy on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 12:55:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Not against legalization (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GregOrr, kbman

        Just against forcing people to ingest more smoke into their lungs just to get a weak headache. It's a waste. Either smoke or don't.

  •  I'll Believe a Non-Intoxicating Plant Has Been (4+ / 0-)

    developed when I hear patients affirming it.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 05:24:03 PM PDT

    •  I have tons of Non-Intoxicating grass. (9+ / 0-)

      And I mow it every Saturday.

    •  If it doesn't (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      too many people

      get you high what's the point of inhaling a herb? I think it defeats the sole purpose of marijuana.  

      •  Re: the idea - it would get you high... (0+ / 0-)

        just not very high. Re: 1918's grass - whatever floats his boat.

      •  The product itself seems useful, for a few... (0+ / 0-)

        It defeats the point of getting high, yes.

        It doesn't defeat the point of medical efficacy for SOME patients. Note, SOME patients, since the article clearly notes that you need THC to treat certain conditions.

        So it's actually useful for those people, who benefit from marijuana without THC in it and may have fewer side effects.

        Of course, it is still useless if you want to use it to get high. For that, we need to legalize and tax it properly, of course! (Not to mention the patients who DO need THC in their marijuana.)

        •  so still (0+ / 0-)

          what's the point? It doesn't touch the problem of illegal marijuana in a world where people can get it illegally or are incarcerated at an alarming rate for  either providing it or imbibing it. what hypocrisy. Who gives a rats ass about the medical aspects they are fine and beneficial but why try and make it so that the good parts are weakened and nobody gets high what a crock of control. Why do you think it makes people sick or well feel better?  Cause it is natures drug a good one a benign one this is b s.

          •  Point is just that it's another strain for a few (0+ / 0-)

            That's all. I didn't say it was AT ALL a useful solution to the problem. It's just a novel strain that's likely useful for some patients. Creating new, useful medical strains is a good thing.

            It isn't useful for other patients (e.g., the many who do benefit from THC), nor does it solve the drug war problems.

            I think we agree on that part, and that you might have misread me... I was simply stating that it's a good product, as far as producing a novel strain of cannabis. I'm very-much in favor of full legalization and taxation, and ending the pointless cartel-funding drug war.

            I'm certainly NOT agreeing with the diarist that we should just legalize this modified no-THC strain, as some sort of substitute for keeping everything else illegal.

            •  The diary is not about no-THC (0+ / 0-)

              I mentioned the no-high version as evidence for the point that strength can be controlled. The weed envisioned in the idea is a weak-to-medium strength target for commercial product.

              •  Of course the strength can be controlled...but if (0+ / 0-)

                you are looking at it from a medical standpoint, you cannot ignore that THC has been shown to have significant medical uses. Some patients may get relief from CBD alone. Many will not.

                There's a reason that (crappy) Marinol is 100% THC. There's a reason that Sativex is 50/50 THC/CBD.

                You suggest that those who need a greater proportion of THC not be allowed to do so as other people who just use it for pleasure would be able to do so.

                This is a horrid suggestion even just from a medical standpoint, even ignoring the benefits of full legalization. Now, I'm all for having novel strains like this, but not at the expense of depriving those who need medications, just so other people don't get high. Or so those patients can't get high. (Except they will. They'll just continue to go to their dealers and fund the cartels, while we continue to lose out on tax revenue.)

                Would you rather people take pharmaceuticals that actually get you physically addicted on top of the high? I'm not sure why you're not railing against those, along with other recreational drugs such as alcohol and nicotine. (At least marijuana has medical uses, unlike the others.)

                •  I'm pro-legalization (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  This is just a form of legalization to chat about. Other/stronger variants could always be available by prescription for medical purposes.

                  •  Okay. I got the idea that you were against (4+ / 0-)

                    legalization in general. I agree that medical uses are a good stepping-stone. However, I don't think making some low-THC "weak weed" initially available is feasible at all.

                    For one, even if it does provide a mild buzz that people enjoy, we'd have to regulate it like we do distilling (and tried to regulate brewing and alcohol in general.) And from a medical standpoint, it doesn't treat a wide range of symptoms that THC and other cannabinoids can address.

                    Legalizing this weak form and ONLY allowing it to be obtained through some commercial entities does not seem like a good idea, in particular. I'd rather not have Monsanto Roundup-Ready Cannabis be the only option. Thus, I don't think it's reasonable to legalize it but not allow it to be grown in whatever form, so individuals and local farmers can grow whatever form. It's either that or just keep it prescription only. The prescription system isn't built to handle a substance like marijuana, nor should it have to be.

                    (If we could just extract out the cannabinoids, which there's certainly technology for, then mix them in proportions for each, there's something that can bring some business to local compounding pharmacies. I'd be happy to see something like that with prescription-only availability.)

                    Now, if you do allow it to be grown, regulating what is grown turns into a nightmare. We already waste millions a year killing feral hemp that just grows back. If it's legal to grow, then you can't really do much without sampling every suspect plant and testing it...

                    In any case, I just don't see this playing out into any sort of useful scenario...I'd rather see more and more medical legalization, and some states slowly phasing in full legalization until we hit that tipping point where it can be done federally. (Then we rake in the tax dollars while watching crime go down and the Mexican cartels wither!)

                    •  Good points / argument (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that what you have in mind is likely the better alternative.

                      This version of the idea was submitted by someone on this website I started (, and I thought it would be interesting to see what people thought. I'm confident that the intention is not to authorize just big corporate growers. And if a marijuana product is sold in stores one day, I would expect it to be pretty heavily regulated for "safety", though it depends what type of store (if just head shops, then maybe not, but if at CVS then yes). I can certainly imagine the FDA testing the product regularly. How is it with cigarette companies?

                      I'd love it if you'd join the site and propose/discuss/vote on policy ideas.


                      •  Safety regulation really is a problem if legal... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        I completely agree on that one. I imagine the rules for any initial legalization would, likely, include small and individual growing and sales first. That way, you can have less-regulated marijuana available from, say, your local organic farmer, or a local co-op. It might not be as stringently-tested as most stuff you inhale...but I'm sure it'd beat the hell out of the Mexican junk that's on the streets now.

                        Large-scale sales become difficult under that system, though. I personally think the best method would be to basically let any store that sells alcohol also sell marijuana. They would have to contract with distributors for "inspected" marijuana, and reasonable FDA regulations would apply.

                        That type of sale would probably be best as far as availability, security, checking IDs, etc. I'm not sure I like the idea of just selling it in head shops; that's getting to the sketchiness of street dealers. Likewise, unless it's going to be medical-grade and dispensed as such, I'm not sure CVS is the place to buy it either. (If it is medical grade, that's fine. That's how they do it in the Netherlands, for example; the pharmacies have a limited range, whereas the coffee shops have a much wider variety.)

                        In any case, I'll take a look at your site...

                      •  I don't think cigarettes are tested at all (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        In fact, for many years, and maybe still, there has been radioactive polonium in them from the supper phosphate fertilizer, causing something like half of the bronchial cancers caused by cigarettes.

                        The tobacco companies knew about it for decades, but couldn't see any profit in making sure it wasn't in the cigarettes, so they just let it happen.

                        Women create the entire labor force.

                        by splashy on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 01:59:12 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

  •  Doubt this: (13+ / 0-)
    With a mediocre legal product, most people would not have enough incentive to jump into the illegal market.
    Pretty sure most smokers will stick with illegal weed if the legal option is schwag.

    "The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world's problems." -Gandhi

    by bobsc on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 05:28:36 PM PDT

  •  To be Clear . . . (13+ / 0-)


    If users want it it is probably safer to give it to them . . .

  •  If you're not smokin' the icky... (16+ / 0-)

    you're not smokin'. Fuck a bunch of weak-ass weed.  :-D

    Wear Your Love Like Heaven ~ Donovan

    by One Pissed Off Liberal on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 05:42:18 PM PDT

  •  So much ridiculousness (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JNSD, US Blues

    in so few words.

  •  Not if these guys have their way (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy, netop, splashy

    "All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree" -- James Madison

    by paulitics on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 05:44:36 PM PDT

  •  I'm sorry, wut? (7+ / 0-)

    Why do people smoke pot? Why on earth legalize ditch weed only? What a passive aggressive idea. If in truth there is a strain that has all the medical benefits and none of the psychoactive parts, bring it on! I would love it, 'cus I don't like getting high anymore and do have health issues, but for those who do like to smoke for the high, why not.

    I remember back in the day buying $10 bags of Mexican weed and hunting high and low for Columbian, or Panama Red, or whatever was the best. Of course you want what gets you where you want to go. If you make it so that only dirt weed is legal then there will still be a black market for good pot.

    Just legalize it, dammit.

    "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

    by high uintas on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 05:44:57 PM PDT

  •  Let the plant be a plant. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GregOrr, Mighty Ike, happymisanthropy

    Grow your own if you need it.

    Disallow sale of said plant using misdemeanor charges.

    Carrying over an ounce off your property?  Confiscate and write a $100 ticket.

  •  The Feds/states just need to give the green light (6+ / 0-)

    ...and Home Depot will sell seeds with all of the other herb, veggie, & flower seeds and people will grow their own and select the variety based on taste, as it should be.  And a weed version of Starbucks will franchise with wifi...

    Eliminate the Bush tax cuts Eliminate Afghan and Iraq wars Do these things first before considering any cuts

    by kck on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 05:47:14 PM PDT

  •  Compare to legal absinthe (0+ / 0-)

    Current absinthe doesn't get you high, just drunk like alcohol.

  •  Are we adults, or are we children. (3+ / 0-)

    Get the government out of our personal lives please.

    But if you insist mankind can't take weed, maybe we should ban the Internet too.  Think of the children.

    •  Well, this isn't my preference, just an idea (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      My personal preference would be just straight legalization.

      •  Then please present that idea (0+ / 0-)

        and not the ridiculous stuff in your diary. Please.

        "Political ends as sad remains will die." - YES 'And You and I' ; -8.88, -9.54

        by US Blues on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 07:28:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So sorry (0+ / 0-)

          I was just trying to post something a bit unique to see what people think. Someone entered this idea on my site ( today.

          •  The thing is (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GregOrr, kbman, too many people, splashy

            Ideas like this perpetuate the notion that there is some way to legalize cannabis without allowing anyone to get "high." Both the recreational affect as well as the medicinal affect are due to the activity of cannabanoids (of which there are many) on the specific receptor sites in our brain that allow the plant to communicate with our nervous system.

            When the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act was passed in 1937 the president of the American Medical Assoc. wrote to congress to complain that cannabis was made illegal under false pretenses. The war on some drugs has gotten way out of control and the only solution is to pull that weed by the root- end the war, period. Presenting half-way solutions only dilutes the necessary action that must be taken for the sake of sanity and truth.

            Thanks for letting me rant.

            "Political ends as sad remains will die." - YES 'And You and I' ; -8.88, -9.54

            by US Blues on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 07:50:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well said (0+ / 0-)

              The reaction on this diary is interesting in that your reaction is the dominant one.

              I guess it seems less likely that this idea would gain political support vs complete legalization. Politicians would have to stick their necks out for a plan that doesn't excite (and sort of angers) the base of supporters.

            •  Also... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kbman, too many people, splashy

              Ideas like this perpetuate the meme that it's bad to get high.

              With many people, that's the fucking point, and that's why they smoke it, and that's why they think that weed makes their life better.  Because it makes them feel good, or feel happy, or be more engaged with life, or be able to relax after a 12-hour day and actually laugh at the bullshit on TV.

              Why's it bad to get high on pot, but not alcohol, tobacco, or, hell, excercise, meditation, prayer, or self-flaggellation?  

            •  The receptor sites aren't just in the brain (0+ / 0-)

              Many are in the internal organs, sometimes doing things like lessening constipation, nausea, and other GI problems.

              Women create the entire labor force.

              by splashy on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 02:05:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Truth be told (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    netop, rivercard

    I wouldn't mind a bit more milder weed out there.  The new wonderweed seems to be all 1 hit stuff.  Gone are the days when you could casually smoke an entire joint and relax with a few friends.

    It seems like most weed today is Jack Daniels, when sometimes all you want is a beer.

    "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

    by Empty Vessel on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 06:00:16 PM PDT

  •  Too Late!!There's already a bunch of bunk weed (0+ / 0-)

    Doesn't seem to have knocked down demand all that much.
    I wouldn't want it

    Happy just to be alive

    by exlrrp on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 06:11:54 PM PDT

  •  No. (7+ / 0-)

    A few tokes of high quality marijuana has a different effect than smoking a bunch of ditchweed. Nobody would want the crap, and seeds and clones of dozens of strains of top grade weed are readily available in the US due to medical marijuana states.

    I support full legalization, allowing individuals to grow their own and to sell it. The only way to put the cartels out of the weed business is to legalize it--completely.

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 06:28:00 PM PDT

  •  prefers RELEGALIZE INDUSTRIAL HEMP (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GregOrr, too many people

    which is enormously a "green" industry we all need to rediscover as having uses in everyday life.

    which will eventually lead to the "eh sure whatever" decision to re-legalize personal gardens.

    no more "trade" to monitor or tax or what the fuck ever. BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER TO ANY FUCKING BODY ELSE if one smokes it for pleasure or thought or enjoying music or... what the fuck ever.

    that is, if people would be fucking SENSIBLE... but there's not much chance of that at the moment; even climate change takes precident. they're making goddamn COMMERCIALS MOCKING CLIMATE CHANGE/GLACIAL MELTS FOR FUCKING COORS ADS NOW.



    by theChild on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 06:48:13 PM PDT

    •  then again, i said the other day, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      too many people



      by theChild on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 06:52:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The article even says that this isn't a "solution" (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    US Blues, kbman, too many people, splashy
    Does this mean normal marijuana is on its way out?
    "Don't worry," says Klein. Clinical trials testing Avidekel's efficacy aren't even set to begin for a few more months. Not to mention that THC is known to help alleviate symptoms that this new high-free strain can't. Cannabis as we know it isn't going anywhere.
    THC has plenty of positive properties. Are there people who would benefit from a non-THC strain of marijuana with high CBD levels? Absolutely. And I think this is a good OPTION for those folks.

    But that's all it should be. An option.

    This is like saying that only painkillers that don't give you psychoactive effects should be legal. Massive pain? Sorry, only ibuprofen, aspirin, and acetaminophen are legal! Just take extra if it still hurts.

    Of course, with my previous example, we do have a massive problem with addiction to Oxycontin and the like. Good thing marijuana isn't addictive and destructive in the same way. Perhaps if it was legal, some of those Oxy addicts in pain could use much-safer marijuana instead!

    (And this "solution" does little, if anything, to stop funding the cartels and failing to collect taxes on a lucrative commodity.)

  •  Legalize It (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kbman, too many people

    Leave us alone with half-assed ideas about making cannabis palatable for fear based humans. Gaia gave us the gift of an herb THAT WORKS BECAUSE OUR BRAINS HAVE RECEPTOR SITES FOR THE ACTIVE COMPOUNDS PRODUCED BY THE PLANT. Get that? It works on humans because the Goddess intended it as a healing plant- medicine, food and fuel.

    JUST SAY NO to the ongoing lies of the war on some drugs.

    "Political ends as sad remains will die." - YES 'And You and I' ; -8.88, -9.54

    by US Blues on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 07:25:36 PM PDT

  •  It's already harmless. (5+ / 0-)

    Why go to even greater lengths to render it joyless as well?  I have to side with the microbrew analogy.  If Coors Light were made the only legal beer one day, I would be assembling a home brew kit before nightfall.

    My question is why are we so pathologically driven to wage a global war on pleasurable sensations?  For what gain?  To what end?  It'd be almost like applying a topical anesthetic to a condom, because why settle for responsible STD prevention when you can also feel totally numb at the same time?

    •  It's parents that stop the push for legalization (0+ / 0-)

      When people think of themselves, they prefer freedom and perceive little harm. When people think of their children, they prefer rules and perceive great harm. Currently the government is helping keep their kids of drugs, and they don't feel want to increase the risk.

      •  Legalized alcohol provides precedent. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kbman, splashy

        Not sure why this would be any different.  Oh, there are always going to be holes in the net; like the kids back in high school who always managed to get a keg to the party (how did they do that?), but we're already not stopping that sort of thing, and there is no reason to think we're ever going to get any better at it.

        I get that parents often want to make the world safe for their children, like Frigg tried to do for Baldur or Thetis for Achilles, but this impulse is an irrational basis for policy, and is doomed to failure in any event.

        The more interesting question from my angle is why we feel so compelled to vilify pleasure itself.  We're very Puritanical like that.

      •  keeping it illegal makes it more available to (0+ / 0-)


        it's easier for a high school kid to get weed than beer because the regulated market for beer means people get checked for age

        if you want LSD, you almost HAVE to find a high school kid (or recent grad)

        re-legalize ALL drugs and take control of them away from criminals

        To be a Republican, you have to believe that our economic problems are caused by the poor having too much money and the rich not having enough.

        by Tommy Jones the Band on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 07:23:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Give Righties another reason to hate guhv'mint? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GregOrr, Paul Ferguson, dewley notid

    There is no way in Hell I want to listen to Mitt Romney scoring political points because the guhv'mint is so incompetent it can only grow ragweed.


    I want Uncle Sam cultivating and selling stuff so potent it scares Willy Nelson.

    "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". Mohandas K. Gandhi

    by DaveinBremerton on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 08:14:16 PM PDT

  •  I disagree (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    too many people, splashy
    Widely available marijuana that gets you just a little high would be pretty safe...
    I disagree, because in order to get high, one would need to smoke a lot more of it.  Smoking less = better/safer.

    Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

    by democracy inaction on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 08:44:00 PM PDT

  •  So you put out weak mj and what happens? (0+ / 0-)

    Instead of one joint a day you end up smoking three.
    Instead of a relatively clean and efficient drug delivery system, now for the same pharmacological effect you must ingest three times the impurities. This is the exact antithesis of sound pharmacological formulation practice. For lack of a better term, this proposal is a prime example of teh stupid.  

    As for the getting high part, to a large extent that is part and parcel of mj's salutary properties. Getting high is little more than a profound release of pent up anxiety. Go ahead and take that away, but do the same for nicotine, caffeine and alcohol delivery systems since all of these get you "high."  

    Notice how popular non-alcoholic wine and beer are? And those nicotine-free cigs are selling like hotcakes. Decaf made it, but nobody seems that happy about it. High-free medical marijuana in pill form has been around for years. It's called Marinol (Dronabinol) and it is basically useless.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site