And so what’s going to happen when one dope grower, proudly with two big plants, discovers the neighbor growing a male plant over the fence, and its pollinating all over the place?
Low grade leaf from male plants is more suitable for elderly (and young people for that matter) so you will want to live well away from any retirement villages.
Low grade leaf from male plants is more suitable for elderly...
I'm not certain that subjecting the elderly to such knowing indignity would serve much purpose. Watching a room full of oldies all saying, "It has no effect on me either" might be funny, but anything from male plants is not low grade anything. It's compost.
As a recently ratified old person I can attest that when it comes to strains and terpene appreciation, age really is no barrier. And regardless of age, nobody should be subjected to either male plants or bad bush weed. Life's too short for that sort of nonsense.
Yup, laughing at complete nonsense sharing a big fat joint of (properly dried) cabbage with nerd friends are some of my favourite memories of a very uncool youth.
Do you have a link for that graph?
I’m curious to know how harm was defined. I find it hard to believe the harm from meth use is less than that for heroin.
Also if that harm takes into account fetal alcohol and P babies.
A relative who works in a school observed the increasing number of P babies coming through schools, for which there is no plan for, and also the increased number of very expensive Harleys on the streets.
The school’s in Flaxmere.
Physiological harm from heroin, excluding fatal OD, is transitory and minor whereas from P it’s major and irreversible.
Possibly also included in "harm to others" is theft committed to fund a drug habit, which is a "harm" that might be expected to be higher for more expensive drugs -- which maybe helps explain heroin's ranking?
A little Googling finds a more detailed version of the graph on p24 of this report (PDF) — Global Commission on Drugs (2019), Classification of Psychoactive Substances
which further subclassifies the harms into
Crime and injury : Crime committed in order to acquire the substance, or increased risk of e.g. domestic violence, traffic accidents
Environmental and international damage e.g. discarded needles, chemicals used in production, deforestation, international crime
Family Adversities e.g. family breakdown, child neglect
Community and economic cost e.g. Health care, prisons, loss of productivity, decline in social cohesion, neighborhood reputation
The largest contribution to harms to others from heroin is, as expected, in the "Crime and injury" subcategory. Admittedly, that turns out to be quite a broad subcategory.
Meanwhile, on the dork side of the debate, FamF seems to be pontificating about nothing else. It seems to have concluded that they'll be heavily defeated when it comes to the decriminalisation of abortion and euthanasia referendum, so for once they're actually focusing on a specific issue. Supporters of reform might want to complain to the companies that own any such billboards, particularly if you're business owners and currently have accounts with them. Or contact businesses that do advertise with the billboard companies and state that you won't buy their products or services.
This is what I mean: http://www.familyfirst.org.nz
> I wonder how many people will actually cast their votes on this basis? My pick is, not many. It certainly hasn't helped the Greens in the past.
In their first MMP election after leaving the Alliance the Greens only just scraped in over the 5% threshold on special votes, thanks to getting a large chunk of the votes the Cannabis Party got in the previous election. Jenny Shipley publicly lambasted the Greens for their cannabis decrim policy, thinking it would hurt them. She couldn't have been more wrong.
The Greens have also regularly attracted votes from young libertarians who understand that the Greens are actually much more sincerely libertarian than ACT, and cannabis policy has been an important test of that for them.
> I hope its lower than that! $100 for 14g seems more reasonable to me
Regulated cannabis businesses - both cultivation and retail - will have to start paying normal business taxes (income, GST, PAYE for employees etc), and possibly a further luxury tax (like that on alcohol and tobacco), so it's unlikely that the price will drop at all. On the other hand, they will be competing with both the remaining black market (in the shorter term), and home growing (in the longer term), so that will put a ceiling on the retail price the new, legal market will bear. Overall, it seems likely that prices will stay pretty close to what they are now.
> there needs to a substantial concurrent increase in mental health funding for areas which deal with the mental health issues associated with marijuana.
I agree that funding for mental health needs to increase, and some of the tax take from regulated cannabis businesses can and should be deployed that way. But to the degree that cannabis use increases with the end of prohibition, it will be displacing drugs like synthetics and P, which people end up using when their dealers can't get cannabis, and which are much more harmful to mental health. So the net effect of cannabis legalization would be an improvement in overall mental health outcomes, even before you factor in the funding it makes available to government.