As an homage to counterculture in the current political climate, it is quite unusual, right?
The current political government has degenerated into memeing and clapbacks on twitter. I don't think it's out of place at all.
And my favorite, the COVFEFE ACT... just because... it’s funny: https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-acronyms-titles-trump-c...
They are also deeply irrational.
My hope is in 10 years or so the hype has died down...
Honestly if there's one thing that Trump could do to win a teeny bit of respect from liberals it would be to actually legalize cannabis, either by de-scheduling or signing legislation given to him by congress.
What's your argument?
The other category is, of course, harm to the user's mental health. In my opinion, dependence is a huge part of this category and cannabis, while not particularly addictive, is definitely more addictive and can produce minor to moderate physical withdrawal effects. LSD seems to be the antithesis of addictive.
There's also the social harm category that I can't speak to, but the UK Centre for Crime and Justice Studies sponsored a study  in 2010 that also takes this into account.
 e.g. https://www.iihs.org/frontend/iihs/documents/masterfiledocs....
And since this increase was so small, I'd be very sceptical until more research is done, particularly because of the amount of variables that need to be controlled for when comparing crash rates between states. We're only talking about 3 states and a few years here.
Not to mention changes caused by selective legalization that wouldn't be the case if it was legal everywhere (higher risk drivers moving to legal states, because of legalization for instance).
Also the study was police reported crashes not fatal crashes. If legal pot causes a 6% increase in fatal crashes that's worth serious consideration, if it's a 6% increase in fender benders, not so much.
But the burden of proof should be on the side that wants to make something illegal. We can talk about regulating use, limiting use through taxation and education etc..., but I think you need definitive evidence of extreme harm that can't be mitigated in any other way before you start putting people in jail for growing a plant.
People already drive drunk because there is no good public transport. I’m sure uber/lyft must have decrease road accidents immensly.
This is a grouping of words that connote happenstance while traffic collisions are generally the predictable outcome of willful, negligent, or criminal actions. #CrashNotAccident
Support levels (October 2018):
Under 35: 78%
Over 55: 59%
Also note that now even older Americans are majority in support.
There are real dangers for some. eg. In people predisposed to mental illness, THC can trigger psychotic episodes (there is lots written on this topic, just google "thc psychosis"). I witnessed this happen in somebody, and it's scary stuff with real negative consequences.
That's not an argument against legalization but I do think the culture needs to not see it as totally harmless.
If pot is five times stronger than it used to be, then you only use a fifth as much. That's not "weaponizing". Nobody I know sits around smoking joint after joint any more, you just have a little bit and you're done.
Actually, no one I know smokes any more. It's all vaporizers and edibles now.
Modern cannabis is much healthier than the stuff we had in the '60s.
Second google hit: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2801827/ - says this on page 9.
The scenario I have in mind is someone who has latent or "below the surface" susceptibility to schizophrenia or bipolar without visible symptoms and THC triggers their first episode. Most people who use it won't see this. Some will and it will come to them without warning. Denial that this is a possibility however unlikely is not great.
Because IIRC that's the result from the history of societies doing that.
But if you look at the demographics of who supports legalization, it's clear which party will eventually pass legislation to legalize. Republicans are increasingly dependant on their aging, white base, and that's the exact demographic that still supports prohibition.
The Republican party as a whole has no reason to support legalization until they decide to try to broaden their appeal, which exactly what they planned on doing after their defeat in 2012. But the rise of Trump changed that. Look at who Trump appointed as his first Attorney General--a man who pined for the Reagan era war on drugs--a man who urged prosecutors to use the death penalty to fight drug trafficking.
If they lose in 2020 and decide to rebrand, who knows, but as of right now there is no chance of a Republican Senate passing legalisation, and I think a small but non-zero chance that a Democratic Senate would.
I find pragmatism rare in politics.
Yes because he recused himself from overseeing the Russia investigation, not because of his drug policies.
>and frankly, Sessions isn't that popular among conservatives.
Only because Trump spent time attacking him for recusing himself, not because of his drug policies.
>Also Trump has come out in support of ending a federal ban
Trump also signaled that he was going to sign the spending bill before he shut down the government for 33 days. He signaled that he was will to accept money for his wall to made DACA permanent. He's changed his position on H-1Bs at least 3 times.
He comes out in support of a lot of things, because he speaks off the cuff, and changes his mind often. His public statements are so loosely correlated with his future actions that with the exception of a few topics where he's been consistent, I mostly ignore any statement that doesn't include an executive order or a signature on a bill.