You must log in or register to comment.

toejampotpourri t1_iu2k9ee wrote

I support full legalization of marijuana. Haven't smoked it in 25 years.


paperwasp3 t1_iu3cnuk wrote

I smoke it every day and I’m well over 50. I too support it’s legalization. The best part is that we can tie the taxes to the state education budget.


trogbite t1_iu490k6 wrote

Right? Colorado literally had more tax revenue than they knew what to do with after legalizing


paperwasp3 t1_iu4i4dy wrote

They had to send checks to everyone as part of their law was to give back any surplus.


Ksradrik t1_iu4ypq2 wrote

Which was then used to buy more weed, which caused more tax returns, its an endless cycle...


Adventurous_Basis t1_iu58syx wrote

Illinois got all the extra tax revenue and then raised the prices on all license and registration renewals as if they were running in a deficit instead


rey177 t1_iu44c7x wrote

Thats if they actually do that unfortunately


Imaginary_Cup_691 t1_iu4br7v wrote

Right, the only reason they’re taking so long is to workout patents and direct the major routes of income directly into their own pockets, not making sure they can help the people out. Nobody should be blindly excited about legalization, there’s a lot of corruption going on behind the scenes and if they ever do go to Schedule II or patent cannabinoids and terpenes and claim they DO have medicinal value, then things will be even worse. We need to be fighting for deregulation of the plant entirely


tilla18 t1_iu512bx wrote

And repairing/rebuilding the roads. Look how much other states have gotten from their legalization changes. The law has never stopped anyone from smoking. It's better that this action benefit society, rather than street dealers and cartels.


paperwasp3 t1_iu53xsa wrote

And I’d argue that weed causes less societal issues than booze.


ChrisFromIT t1_iu3entk wrote

I support it too, haven't smoked it myself at all. And up here in Canada it has been legalized and it hasn't been an issue at all.


Lee1138 t1_iu4vnqy wrote

Same. Never tried it, and I doubt I ever will try it, even if it becomes legal, but there is no good reason for it to be illegal when alcohol and tobacco are legal.


Murpydoo t1_iu2kpyf wrote

People will get Marijuana whether it is legal or not. Kids too.

Honestly easier for kids to get it if it is illegal, because the black market is bigger and they don't care who they sell it to.


shamus727 t1_iu3ojc4 wrote

Not to mention this is the true gateway. If I was able to buy weed from the store when I was 19 I never would have gotten an offer to buy some cocain from my dealer, and chances are the next 5 years of my life would have been much different.


OperationMobocracy t1_iu3wkvr wrote

I also suspect that lumping together all drugs as catastrophically dangerous by anti-drug propaganda. A person consumes some cannabis and finds that its not dangerous and then begins to think that the dangers of other drugs must be grossly exaggerated as well.

Plus the fact that until fentanyl, most recreational drugs at common potency and doses could be sampled without much immediate risk. Heroin might be the asterisk to this statement, but I'd wager that more often than not it wasn't at a potency that posed a high overdose risk.

Of course this kind of discounting of risk didn't take into effect the cumulative consumption risks of addiction or tolerance, but that's generally not what the propaganda tried to spell out. Plus most people aren't instantly addicted with one or two initial doses of anything, so its easy to see people using coke a couple of times and thinking its not a big deal and not realizing maybe it is a big deal some many doses in the future when they find out they can't go without.


admiralwarron t1_iu41hic wrote

I wonder if it would make sense to have something like a driver's licence for hard drugs. They first have to learn what the drug does to the body, how to be safe with it, what to do in case of overdose, how to spot a bad batch and so on.

If they have the licence, they can legally buy and carry a certain amount of hard drugs.


OperationMobocracy t1_iu42cw7 wrote

I think it probably makes perfect sense. There's all kinds of dangerous things we want or need people to have access to and a common solution is a licensing process which controls access to the thing and tries to guarantee that such use is reasonable and responsible -- explosives, radioactive materials, dangerous chemicals. Even a lot of gun permit laws require some kind of classroom instruction on law and safety and a basic functional test of gun use.

I think the problem with a "drug user license" is avoiding the diversion risk. It would probably be tempting to get your license, buy the drug and resell it. It's way lower risk than reselling your sample of U-235 or blasting caps.


AberrantRambler t1_iu4c47b wrote

The only people that it would be worth selling to would be the people that couldn’t get the license - you know, exactly the type of people society has said we don’t want to have this drug.

Funnily enough, this is exactly the type of person who would turn on their dealer in a heartbeat if they got caught and were promised some of their drug. Then they can go in the same treatment program as all the people who are denied the license.


OperationMobocracy t1_iu4kgns wrote

Part of me wants to believe that that this would work and that there's some mix of rules and enforcement that would solve a diversion problem, but part of me also thinks that it could just devolve into a drug prohibition 2.0 cat and mouse game.

Probably a low barrier to entry for obtaining licensing would prevent a lot of diversion, basically excluding people considered too at risk (teens, mentally ill, etc). But there's always the risk of some meaningful number of people who are just non-cooperative with obtaining a license.

It's still an interesting idea.


weareeverywhereee t1_iu4ut7h wrote

I mean this is kind of happening via doctors. Check out like mindbloom or nuelife…doctor checkup via phone to ensure it will be ok, pay some money…boom ketamine at your door


Oh_My-Glob t1_iu5bqxp wrote

> Heroin might be the asterisk to this statement, but I'd wager that more often than not it wasn't at a potency that posed a high overdose risk.

I'd say crystal meth should have an asterisk there too. Personally I think coke, meth and heroin are too damaging and risky to ever be fully legalized. Coke mostly for its cardiovascular risks. Cannabis, psilocybin, LSD, DMT and MDMA are all pretty safe if done responsibly and have medical significance


OperationMobocracy t1_iu5iu8v wrote

The funny thing about amphetamines is how they seem to be just fine to feed to kids with ADD. I know they kind of process them differently neurologically but still.

Some people manage maintenance doses of opiates for years, even decades without problems. But there’s segment of the population that will want continually escalating doses and end up overdosing.


ked_man t1_iu2o582 wrote

Exactly. Kinda hard to buy booze underage since all of it is at regulated businesses that check ID. Being illegal, yet readily available increases access. Drug dealers are already breaking the law by selling it, so you think any of them care the age of their buyer?


KallistiEngel t1_iu2y7ur wrote

Speaking from experience, when I was underage we could often find someone who would buy us booze. But it was still much easier to buy weed even though it wasn't legal.


OperationMobocracy t1_iu3voyi wrote

When I was in high school the demand for alcohol was broader than the demand for cannabis -- ie, more students were interested or willing to drink than they were interested in smoking pot.

What's curious, though, is that there wasn't really a black market for booze. As in, someone of legal age who bought booze specifically to sell it to underage high school kids. You can almost imagine some person with a couple of cases of half-pint vodka bottles and cases of beer who sells them off to high school kids, either direct consumers or as a wholesaler to some enterprising high school student.

Everyone seemed to have some inconsistent access to someone of age who would buy booze, but it was really inconsistent as I remember it. You mostly couldn't call them up and say you needed a hookup tonight. I even remember a couple of times where my circle of friends went through the motions trying but getting turned down by everyone.


LightningSmyth t1_iu3o888 wrote

I’m more worried about vaping still being a thing when my toddler grows up…


Tony2Punch t1_iu4cdou wrote

Don’t let these people drop your guard. I went to school as smoking was falling rapidly. Sometimes we would even talk about how cool it was that our generation had basically cut smoking off by 80%. The ads they used against us must have actually worked. They generally focused on how bad you would smell, teeth yellowing, bad breath, being broke, bad smelling car etc.
However, Big Tobacco just created a smoking device that mitigates some of those problems and now everyone is hooked. Even people you wouldn’t expect like the book worm is hooked. Also, these vapes use Salt Nic solutions, which are 30% stronger and more addictive than the cigarettes with the same amount as before. Fortunately, people are also quitting. A number of people are super casual about quitting and it isn’t some weird thing to not smoke. If I’m at a party and everyone’s vaping and I get offered, I genuinely feel like no one has ever felt off by me turning it down. I usually just throw out “I’m quittin” and sometimes they will just say good luck and leave it at that. So I think this generation will have more quitters and more absolute fiends who will be miserable without constant nicotine.


drock42 t1_iu4bl92 wrote

I'm for legalization but disagree. There's a lot more floating around Michigan now that it's legal. Is it better quality and safer (less shady shit going on, lower police tension, etc) absolutely! But it is definitely more plentiful and easy to get.


Wolfenberg t1_iu4enw4 wrote

The worst cases of kids doing it have been doing it because it's illegal..


Kind_Sceptre t1_iu4qfid wrote

Precisely. When the black market is booming kids can so easily get it. I started at 14 in an illegal state. Never had a problem getting my hands on it but I did get laced and probably cancerous stuff multiple times. It needs to be legalized. These kids today are smoking black market cartridges which are filled with mystery oil full of pesticides/carcinogens. Those things are so damn dangerous and could cause a big rise in cancer rates in the future. Kids need to be protected through a government which is understanding of reality and not hurt through the denial of reality..

Legalizing it addresses the reality that kids who want to smoke will smoke regardless if it's illegal or not. The only question is if you want those kids to be risking getting diseases/laced because the powers that be are too stupid and old to understand that by not legalizing it all they are doing is contributing to the poisoning of kids.

I hate these black market cartridges and am thankful they were not around when I was a kid. I fear for the kids who smoke these things because the government is too incompetent to actively protect them from the poison. No kid should smoke so young but the reality is they do and they will continue to wether we want them to or not. We have to look reality in the face and make decisions to protect humans from human nature. Wether it's something we like or not it doesn't matter because we are dealing with reality and the reality is these kids are poisoning themselves because of the futile attempt to make cannabis illegal.


Drink_in_Philly t1_iu4ia8m wrote

So, I smoked weed as a kid in the 90's and have kids now. What you say seems logical but in fact is just preposterously wrong. It is far, far easier for kids to get weed now. I'm California, Oregon at least, it's everywhere. Everywhere. Y kid finds discarded pens with plenty of THC left lying on the ground where teenagers hang out. It's damn near impossible to avoid.
I also supported and support legalization. But don't fool yourself. In states where it's legal-recreational, weed is everywhere from middle school on up. And with the pens it's harder to know if your kid is using it.
Our kid had depression and anxiety and it's an issue we are dealing with at 13. Personally, based on what I know now, I would recommend every parent test randomly once in a while for the combo nicotine and weed tests. Even if you think there's no way. Don't make it emotional. Just let them know it's a thing that will happen from time to time so that they can tell friends "oh my parents suck, they don't trust me, ill get caught if I try it. " It gives them another tool to resist peer pressure if nothing else. But we live in a very affluent, high expectation neighborhood in Northern California and in middle school the rate of kids who have tried weed is over 60% easily. Easily. My kid thinks its closer to 80%. I know for sure some kids are regular users and their parents would never imagine.


LowKeyRebelx t1_iu9tqs1 wrote

Nothing like encouraging your kids to go no contact with you when they hit 18. Treating your kids like prison inmates isn't the way. Sorry.


bohemiantranslation t1_iu5nctp wrote

I remember when i was younger getting weed was wayyy easier then getting booze. It was probably cheaper too in the long run.


DillaVibes t1_iu5pjpo wrote

> Honestly easier for kids to get it if it is illegal, because the black market is bigger and they don't care who they sell it to.

Making it legal does not mean it will be more difficult to get illegally. Minors can get cigarettes and alcohol the same way.


Aggromemnon t1_iu3c03z wrote

There is, and should be, a perceived risk in the use of any intoxicant by children. Same for driving under the influence. The country did not turn into amoral dope fiends just because marijuana was legalized.


Iska45 t1_iu3ubke wrote

Yes. But the article refers to the change in perception post legalization.


PaxNova t1_iu48qsb wrote

And apparently the perception didn't change. I can't access the full report and can't tell if it has remained consistently high or consistently low.


Imaginary_Cup_691 t1_iu4c1jc wrote

Exactly, they turned into dopefiends after the US government flooded the streets with fentanyl, not after they legalized cannabis


Drink_in_Philly t1_iu4h1b7 wrote

I think the title and purpose of the study will miss most of this audience, personally


iancarry t1_iu3ab6w wrote

oh look .. another scientific study my government will ignore and hand out 12year sentences for bag of outdoor hay


Boisecj t1_iu2ljl8 wrote

There are also studies that suggest full legalization of everything, with positive results.


its2022and t1_iu37j7r wrote

Why not tell the children the truth about marijuana?

Entire generations were lied to that marijuana was dangerous, and in the same schedule 1 group of drugs as heroin.


Koolest_Kat t1_iu2mvk0 wrote

Just like buying alcohol when I was underage, it was a big ass hassle. Weed, Coke, amphetamines, crank?? One call, sometimes even delivered and cheaper.

Ain’t nobody giving away high priced weed


theronimous t1_iu2stao wrote

But there was no impact on your perceived purchase of alcohol.


AdminsAreLazyID10TS t1_iu34gsd wrote

Underaged drinking could mess your life up far less than a marijuana conviction.

This study is a demonstration that kid's brains don't understand risk to reward enough for illegality to be a barrier.


wernermuende t1_iu3m6bw wrote

For once, I will read the article before posting ... [please hold the line]... I even went to the abstract. Hit paywall.

It is unclear to me what "perceived risk" entails. If it just the health risks or also inlcudes other kinds of risks like legal risk


csanner t1_iu41516 wrote

I managed to read it

"Perceived risk", in the article and study, refers to the risk of harm children perceive in the use of marijuana. They're studying whether legalizing it makes kids assume it's safer than they would if it remained illegal, and apparently there's no effect.


wernermuende t1_iu42cm6 wrote

Yeah, but what is "risk".

That's my question. They mention a questionnaire, so they asked actual children actual questions, so I would like to know how exactly they defined and measured this "perceived risk"

Risk of what? Risk of munchies? Yeah, that doesn't change.

Risk of lung cancer? Not really

Risk of going to prison over a blunt? That definetly changes, so the percieved risk should change too if legal risks are included in risk.


csanner t1_iu42zxx wrote

They were specifically checking what kids think the health risks are. Is it impacted by the legality.

"We have this substance and it's illegal because it's dangerous" - okay, must be dangerous, right? To an 8yo that makes sense

It's legal now - does that suddenly mean those same kids are going to go "oh! It's safe now!"

I'm not going to have a discussion over the safety of marijuana because it's not relevant to this study. This study is only about how kids see it, and whether it being legal or illegal changes that

I will say, though, that the fact they found no change does take a bit of momentum away from people screaming "think of the children"


wernermuende t1_iu4a95f wrote

The thing is they didn't write anywhere that they only mean health risks. And I would love to see how those questions are actually worded


csanner t1_iu4azk8 wrote

"Methods: We analyzed data from the multisite multistate Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development Study to determine how the perception of cannabis harm among children (age at baseline: 9–10; N=10,395) changes over time in states with and without RCLs. Using multilevel modeling, we assessed survey responses from children longitudinally across 3 years, adjusting for state-, family-, and participant-level clustering and child-level factors, including demographics (sex, race, and socioeconomic status), religiosity, and trait impulsivity."


wernermuende t1_iu4bc1q wrote

Yes I can read. Maybe it’s some sort of translation or intercultural thing but I can’t extrapolate from this statement if harm only refers to health risks


PuttingInTheEffort t1_iu4uz92 wrote

Seems to me they just asked kids "hey if this becomes legal, do you think it's any less dangerous than before?"

So whatever a 9 year old would perceive as dangerous. Which honestly doesnt seem like a solid study, I feel like you could phrase anything just right and get the answer you want from a child.


avalonian422 t1_iu3zm9z wrote

I hate weed. Makes me paranoid af. But if it makes other people feel good, why not.


nedizzle83 t1_iu47t4r wrote

Potent weed is too strong for you I guess. Imagine drinking 70% type of alcohol. That's not fun at all for 2 times per year drinker.


Sponium t1_iu4dlkr wrote

More like 2 stomach purge per year with a 70% alcohol


amus t1_iu2chgw wrote

I don't see how one follows the other.


BoundariesAreFun OP t1_iu2d9ga wrote

Neither do I but it's been a big argument among those opposed to legalization that it will make children think it's okay and increase their usage.


FerociousPancake t1_iu38clb wrote

It doesn’t. Never did, never will. Pharmaceutical companies don’t want you to know that though. Neither do any other companies that give tons of money to politicians. The system is so unbelievably corrupt and people are suffering because of it.


KeybladeMasterAqua t1_iu3s6ov wrote

Legalization is good for adults. You still don’t want kids smoking it, but it’s the same reason why you don’t want children drinking or using cigarettes. Those who use the “children will do it” argument don’t have any real arguments, considering the legality of tobacco and alcohol


Numbah9Dr t1_iu3ypeo wrote

It's almost like non Marijuana users think that those of us who do are just gonna let the kids smoke, "because it's harmless."

Let me ask this, did prohibition of alcohol keep children safe? Did legalizing it again cause a wave of pediatric alcoholism? OK then.


Lenel_Devel t1_iu2xrsi wrote

Almost as if kids won't rebel if there's nothing to rebel...


VICARD0 t1_iu404sq wrote

I’d rather my kids smoke weed than drink alcohol


JohnnyPappis t1_iu4btw6 wrote

I mean this honestly, as a guy in his late 30s. It was easier to get weed in HS then it was beer or liquor because beer and liquor were regulated. Meanwhile you just needed to find the right classmate to get weed.


maxman87 t1_iu4fwsi wrote

Another day.. another Marijuana study at the top of r/science…


i_shoot_guns_321s t1_iu4czzg wrote

Even if it did, I'd still prefer to be the one to discipline my child if he does end up trying marijuana.

A criminal record will destroy his life.


Steamstash t1_iu4e74q wrote

Funny because the DEA actively told me that marijuana was just as dangerous as crack, cocaine and heroin.


kremit73 t1_iu5yr4q wrote

False. It gives more accurate relation of cannabis to other drugs. I grew up being told its as bad as coke or heroin, so when i grew up ad learned cannabis isnt going to kill you i realized that my aurhorities were lying up and down to my face. Meant i had to learn that herion was actually bad from peers unfortunate enought to be addicted and saw them rot. Young people may not see canbabis as different but it allows use to accurately warn the kids about the truly dangerous things without straight up lying to them


AutoModerator t1_iu2bynl wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


zx111111 t1_iu3kgzf wrote

Yeah this is one thing that have always irked me, people will just find their own suppliers whether it is legal or not


yesnomaybeum t1_iu3tlqm wrote

Yo, let me get some of that blue dream


BruntLIVEz t1_iu3u1nx wrote

It does have an impact on ensuring a felony record for the poor detouring their impact on society. It’s a gateway criminal charge to mediocrity. Courts love it police adore it.


MV203 t1_iu4bucz wrote

Something the Netherlands could have told you 20 years+ ago...


murderedbyaname t1_iu4c1zf wrote

Meanwhile the Sheriff in our neighboring county actually said in a city council meeting recently that you can harvest 60 lbs of weed from 5 plants. I need to send this report to our city council.


coreyman317 t1_iu4jmpu wrote

The perceived risk? This is confusing


samdc1985 t1_iu4lz9t wrote

I started smoking for the first time at 15, bought the stuff from a hole where a door bell use to be in a bad neighborhood. Kids are gonna do it regardless of it’s legal or not


SatanLifeProTips t1_iu4qb58 wrote

The legal market pushed the illegal market back. No one makes contact with illegal dealers to score weed. The shady weed dealers all went out of business. Ordering online or going into a shop and selecting 1 of 50 varieties with various effects made the entire process so much better than the illegal market pale by comparison.

That not only keeps kids from buying weed, but also it destroys the sales link to the illegal market that also sells harder drugs. This reduces the amount of people climbing the drugs ladder.


MTL_t3k t1_iu4x2ij wrote

More garbage research to support cannabis legalisation.

Who cares what uninformed children think or feel about something. If a poll of five year olds finds that most think or feel that Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy are real, that does not make it so.

Cannabis does impair cognitive development, and legalising it leads to increased use among young people. That is not hypothetical; that is what actually happened when Québec legalised and started selling it at government-regulated dispensaries (SQDC) in 2018. Teens were lining up around the block. The government was forced to undertake a bizarre public education campaign warning the same young people it was selling cannabis to about the risk of impaired cognitive development; it eventualy increased the age limit to purchase cannabis from 18 to 21, with little scientific evidence that doing so would mitigate potential harm (cognitive development continues beyond age 21).

Decriminalation is one thing, where most people agree that no one should have a criminal record for simple possession, and very few actually do. Legalisation is another matter. The government getting into the business of providing products or services with known detrimental effects, whether gambling, alcohol or cannabis, while simultaneously promoting campaigns to limit the harm from these same products and services, is the height of hypocrisy.


LowKeyRebelx t1_iu9ta3o wrote

We care because it debunks another brain dead talking point we heard before legalization. And that might be true in Quebec, but in the usa there has been NO INCREASE in teen use anywhere were marijuana has been legalized. Decriminalization is like putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound. No, we as a society want this common plant regulated. That means legal, with warning labels, thc content listed, store clerks checking ID, jobs, tax revenue, and security. Not "prohibition lite". Which is almost as bad as prohibition itself. Time to remove that moronic policy from our lawbooks.


MTL_t3k t1_iub1toc wrote

Usually refrain from responding to obnoxious idiots, but just in case anyone who does not know better comes across this nonsense:

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Cannabis Use Following Legalization in US States With Medical Cannabis Laws

In this cross-sectional study analyzing repeated yearly surveys of US adults conducted from 2008 to 2017, living in a state after enactment of recreational cannabis laws was associated with increases in the odds of cannabis use..."

Did Prohibition Really Work? Alcohol Prohibition as a Public Health Innovation

"Death rates from cirrhosis and alcoholism, alcoholic psychosis hospital admissions, and drunkenness arrests all declined steeply during the latter years of the 1910s, when both the cultural and the legal climate were increasingly inhospitable to drink, and in the early years after National Prohibition went into effect."

So basically everything pothead idiot just wrote is simply not true. Legalisation of cannabis has led to increased use, and prohibition worked remarkably well in terms of public health outcomes.


snorlz t1_iu52kz6 wrote

The study is about "perceived risk of marijuana" aka how kids think about the detrimental effects of it. This study is NOT about the likelihood of use

Unsurprisingly, living across an invisible state line doesnt really matter. Regardless of location, most American kids (and kids around the world) are getting the same info and have the same idea about the risks of marijuana now. It was like this even before legalizing weed started catching on. Whether a states lawmakers care or can get over decades of anti-weed propaganda is a different story though


coyote-1 t1_iu53vkk wrote

The study to do would be paranoia. One of the complaints of pot users in the past was about paranoia. Now that no one is coming after them anymore, is paranoia still a feature of the marijuana experience?


gandolfthe t1_iu5k5jw wrote

If it's illegal and you want some cannabis you need teenagers to get it..... In high school we could get any drug we wanted in under an hour for cheap...


prowdwackadoo t1_iu5slf0 wrote

And yet politicians in Colorado springs INSIST that legalizing the recreational sale of marijuana will hurt kids. Vote YES on 300 and 301


Ed_Yeahwell t1_iu643n9 wrote

That’s fair enough, I’m sure it’s similar with Tobacco and alcohol


Ill-Friend-956 t1_iu6euym wrote

I'm still waiting for higher THC in the edibles at government stores.


Dead_Art t1_iu6rn4l wrote

Because making it illegal never did anything more than making people like me more money, go ahead and make it illegal again you'll never catch us.


Miserable-Expert-119 t1_iua1d2r wrote

Legal nationwide in Canada since October 17 2018 and the debauchery, rioting and mass psycosis is still at the usual levels from before.


atollgranolaot t1_iubfkcz wrote

Kids are smarter than we give them credit for.


Ehralur t1_iuckgfw wrote

Hasn't this been known for at least 30 years? Weed use amongst children is and always has been way lower in the Netherlands than in the US.


n3w4cc01_1nt t1_iu3zzjc wrote

kids that eat edibles could be the same kids that ate an OxyContin then overdosed.


rosetacks t1_iu45ii7 wrote

Do people who oppose this forget about alcohol? Why is this up for debate?


lostoneY t1_iu45po1 wrote

There nothing wrong with, everyone knows it. Still wouldn't let children use, but leave that to good ol' USA


ShortBrownAndUgly t1_iu46ws9 wrote

This finding directly contradicts previous studies, no?


slonokot t1_iu48l7s wrote

And it freaking should not. There are studies showing that regular cannabis use during puberty leads to psychological disorders and drug abuse later. Say this one:


LowKeyRebelx t1_iu9th1w wrote

Another great reason to leglaize cannabis. It should be for adult use only unless there is a medical need. Drug dealers don't check ID. Nothing puts mairjuana in the hands of teens faster than prohibition.


Sigfreedsolomon t1_iu3l5u5 wrote

Stop calling it marijuana- it’s a racist title designed to scare people.

It’s cannabis.

R/science should not be using racist colloquialisms.


BoundariesAreFun OP t1_iu3mj3y wrote

I spent years feeling the same, but honestly at this point the word marijuana has been retaken (when cops want to be racist they use "marihuana"), and it doesn't scare people anymore. Tens of millions of people live in areas where they regularly pass legal marijuana stores. As someone who lives in LA and is visiting the Seattle area most stores use the term marijuana, and the majority of people refer to it as that, and I don't see that changing.


Sigfreedsolomon t1_iu7w000 wrote

The word marijuana came from a report that also described cannabis as making “negroes sleep with white women”

Just because people have forgotten that, doesn’t make it right.


BoundariesAreFun OP t1_iu817mh wrote

They referred to it as mariHuana then. It's around the time they did the "Marihuana Tax Act".


Sponium t1_iu4dw2v wrote

I'm curious, what is the meaning and past history behind the word Marijuana for it to be considered racist or some?


kazmerb t1_iu5eou0 wrote

Back when William Hearst started the campaign to ban hemp because he owned paper mills that printed his newspapers, and hemp would edge into his profit margins of the country switched to hemp paper from wood paper, they decided to play into the at the time political theater concerning Mexican laborers. They said that cannabis, or as the Mexicans call it “marijuana”, is a drug made by the devil and hemp, it’s cousin, was no better. So they directly connected hemp/cannabis to Mexicans stealing your jobs and women/daughters, and later on did the same thing with reefer madness/jazz/blacks.


Sponium t1_iu5tba8 wrote

Allright, thanks for the little history mate, I get it now