If California Legalizes Marijuana, Consumption Will Likely Increase.

  • Thread starter indicabush
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
indicabush

indicabush

2,583
263
If California legalizes marijuana, consumption will likely increase. But is that a bad thing?

In six months, California will join Maine, Nevada and probably a few other states in deciding whether or not to legalize the large-scale commercial production of marijuana. Residents will be inundated with wild claims about the promises and pitfalls of these initiatives.

You will hear debates about government revenue, criminal justice benefits, the environment, and the effect of legalization on Mexican drug-trafficking organizations. Public health conversations may prove especially contentious. Some will claim that legalization will constitute a net gain for health. Others will say the exact opposite.

Although you shouldn't believe either extreme, one fairly safe bet is that if we legalize and allow profit-maximizing firms to produce, sell, and advertise recreational marijuana, use will increase.
The data from Colorado and Washington, where voters legalized recreational marijuana in 2012, are still preliminary. We do know, however, that the number of Coloradans who reported using marijuana in the past month increased from about 10.5% in 2011-12 to nearly 15% in 2013-14. In Washington, reported use increased from just above 10% to almost 13%.

Given that both states' pre-existing medical systems already provided quasi-legal availability, it is hard to imagine that commercial legalization did not account for at least some of these increases. (That said, other factors could influence marijuana use and it will be some time before researchers have enough data to conduct rigorous analyses. Some of the increase could also come from respondents being more honest now that marijuana is legal in their states).

But is an increase in marijuana consumption a bad thing from a public health standpoint? Not necessarily.

Much will depend on the types of users who account for the increase — adults or children? Heavy users or light users? No one wants kids to get stoned at school or to become regular users while their brains are still developing. And no one wants adults to be impaired at work or behind the wheel. Some heavy marijuana users, moreover, struggle to control their consumption and this can create challenges for them and their families. But there are real benefits associated with marijuana use, such as medical relief or simply pleasure.

Exactly how people consume marijuana will also help determine public health consequences. In addition to vaporizing marijuana plant material (which reduces inhalation of carcinogens and other substances), people can and do eat, drink, vape hash-oil, and “dab” waxes that are high in the intoxicating chemical THC. The negative effects of over consuming edibles are well-documented, but much less is known about the pros and cons of these other forms.

Perhaps the most important consideration is how increased marijuana consumption may influence the use of other substances.

Although the social costs of heavy alcohol use are much larger than the social costs attributable to heavy marijuana use, we do not know if legalization will lead to more or less drinking. The research on the relationship between alcohol and marijuana use is split down the middle.

This connection is especially important in terms of traffic safety. The bulk of the research suggests that driving drunk is more dangerous than driving stoned, and driving stoned is worse than driving sober. Research also suggests that driving under the influence of both alcohol and marijuana is worse than either by itself.

It would be a real blow to public health if an increase in marijuana use led to increased tobacco use. Even though the bulk of the research suggests this is a possibility, one cannot assume that the relationship would remain the same under a different legal regime. Besides, most of the relevant studies were conducted before e-cigarettes and marijuana vape pens became popular, so researchers and voters alike have to be careful about making projections.
There is also a new and much smaller body of research suggesting that increasing the availability of marijuana reduces problems with opioid painkillers. Some of these studies, however, are working papers that have not yet been subject to rigorous peer review.

When you vote on whether to legalize marijuana, public health consequences may not be at the top of your list. If they are, I'm here to tell you the experts have more questions than answers. That won't change before November.

Authored by LA Times
 
Two.Bears

Two.Bears

995
143
If California legalizes marijuana, consumption will likely increase. But is that a bad thing?

In six months, California will join Maine, Nevada and probably a few other states in deciding whether or not to legalize the large-scale commercial production of marijuana. Residents will be inundated with wild claims about the promises and pitfalls of these initiatives.

You will hear debates about government revenue, criminal justice benefits, the environment, and the effect of legalization on Mexican drug-trafficking organizations. Public health conversations may prove especially contentious. Some will claim that legalization will constitute a net gain for health. Others will say the exact opposite.

Although you shouldn't believe either extreme, one fairly safe bet is that if we legalize and allow profit-maximizing firms to produce, sell, and advertise recreational marijuana, use will increase.
The data from Colorado and Washington, where voters legalized recreational marijuana in 2012, are still preliminary. We do know, however, that the number of Coloradans who reported using marijuana in the past month increased from about 10.5% in 2011-12 to nearly 15% in 2013-14. In Washington, reported use increased from just above 10% to almost 13%.

Given that both states' pre-existing medical systems already provided quasi-legal availability, it is hard to imagine that commercial legalization did not account for at least some of these increases. (That said, other factors could influence marijuana use and it will be some time before researchers have enough data to conduct rigorous analyses. Some of the increase could also come from respondents being more honest now that marijuana is legal in their states).

But is an increase in marijuana consumption a bad thing from a public health standpoint? Not necessarily.

Much will depend on the types of users who account for the increase — adults or children? Heavy users or light users? No one wants kids to get stoned at school or to become regular users while their brains are still developing. And no one wants adults to be impaired at work or behind the wheel. Some heavy marijuana users, moreover, struggle to control their consumption and this can create challenges for them and their families. But there are real benefits associated with marijuana use, such as medical relief or simply pleasure.

Exactly how people consume marijuana will also help determine public health consequences. In addition to vaporizing marijuana plant material (which reduces inhalation of carcinogens and other substances), people can and do eat, drink, vape hash-oil, and “dab” waxes that are high in the intoxicating chemical THC. The negative effects of over consuming edibles are well-documented, but much less is known about the pros and cons of these other forms.

Perhaps the most important consideration is how increased marijuana consumption may influence the use of other substances.

Although the social costs of heavy alcohol use are much larger than the social costs attributable to heavy marijuana use, we do not know if legalization will lead to more or less drinking. The research on the relationship between alcohol and marijuana use is split down the middle.

This connection is especially important in terms of traffic safety. The bulk of the research suggests that driving drunk is more dangerous than driving stoned, and driving stoned is worse than driving sober. Research also suggests that driving under the influence of both alcohol and marijuana is worse than either by itself.

It would be a real blow to public health if an increase in marijuana use led to increased tobacco use. Even though the bulk of the research suggests this is a possibility, one cannot assume that the relationship would remain the same under a different legal regime. Besides, most of the relevant studies were conducted before e-cigarettes and marijuana vape pens became popular, so researchers and voters alike have to be careful about making projections.
There is also a new and much smaller body of research suggesting that increasing the availability of marijuana reduces problems with opioid painkillers. Some of these studies, however, are working papers that have not yet been subject to rigorous peer review.

When you vote on whether to legalize marijuana, public health consequences may not be at the top of your list. If they are, I'm here to tell you the experts have more questions than answers. That won't change before November.

Authored by LA Times
Vote NO on California legalization.

According to the info it will cut in half the number if plants MMJ patients can GROW. If there are multiple patients in the house only 6 plants period. Before you could have 6 in veg and 6 in flower per patient.

Basically they don't want you growing your medicine. They want only big grow facilities that pay big $ for grow licenses.

Wbere i received this info was Ruffhouse Studios YouTube channel.

They released a vid yesterday going into tge pros and cons about this vote.
 
Seamaiden

Seamaiden

Living dead girl
23,596
638
Vote NO on California legalization.

According to the info it will cut in half the number if plants MMJ patients can GROW. If there are multiple patients in the house only 6 plants period. Before you could have 6 in veg and 6 in flower per patient.

Basically they don't want you growing your medicine. They want only big grow facilities that pay big $ for grow licenses.

Wbere i received this info was Ruffhouse Studios YouTube channel.

They released a vid yesterday going into tge pros and cons about this vote.
That's not really correct, you're citing what's allowable under SB420 and as we've learned these past few years, even that doesn't afford patients any rights--local municipalities are still able to fully ban *all* forms of cultivation, including medical.

*First, AUMA preserves patients' rights as they were given (ostensibly, we don't have a whole lot of rights under 215) via 215. That means that, with a recommendation, you'll be able to grow what your doctor says you need.
*Second, AUMA is recreational, not medical. In other words, you won't need a recommendation or have to explain to someone why you 'need' cannabis, you can just grow it.
*Third, in all but the most egregious cases, penalties are removed or reduced, often significantly.
*Fourth, all people convicted of cannabis 'offenses' will be able to get their records expunged, and a lot more easily than is possible now (I cannot adequately explain what a process this is).

I'll reread the text, but as I recall, it never mentioned a limit on patients because it's recreational, not medical. I can discuss more, such as the fact that AUMA makes room for boutique-scale growers. And that while it does allow localities to ban OD cultivation it specifically disallows them from banning *all* cultivation.

And keep in mind, this is for recreational, which is how I started out using cannabis.

Should we discuss the mess that we have with MMRSA, which is something we didn't get to vote on and which has led to a new slew of bans across the state?

Vote YES on AUMA and let's enjoy some actual legalization in this state, CO-style.

My observations on anti-AUMA people are that they are growers, and to a person they are white and seem to be relatively unaffected by the tens of thousands of arrests that still continue in this state, primarily of people of color, like my sons. They are incredibly vocal and prone to not being able to compromise. I consider AUMA a fantastic compromise, especially since it takes such specific steps to reduce arrests and further criminalization of cannabis-associated activities.


@indicabush -- the LA Times seems to publish articles that have a decidedly anti-cannabis slant, IMO.
 
Two.Bears

Two.Bears

995
143
That's not really correct, you're citing what's allowable under SB420 and as we've learned these past few years, even that doesn't afford patients any rights--local municipalities are still able to fully ban *all* forms of cultivation, including medical.

*First, AUMA preserves patients' rights as they were given (ostensibly, we don't have a whole lot of rights under 215) via 215. That means that, with a recommendation, you'll be able to grow what your doctor says you need.
*Second, AUMA is recreational, not medical. In other words, you won't need a recommendation or have to explain to someone why you 'need' cannabis, you can just grow it.
*Third, in all but the most egregious cases, penalties are removed or reduced, often significantly.
*Fourth, all people convicted of cannabis 'offenses' will be able to get their records expunged, and a lot more easily than is possible now (I cannot adequately explain what a process this is).

I'll reread the text, but as I recall, it never mentioned a limit on patients because it's recreational, not medical. I can discuss more, such as the fact that AUMA makes room for boutique-scale growers. And that while it does allow localities to ban OD cultivation it specifically disallows them from banning *all* cultivation.

And keep in mind, this is for recreational, which is how I started out using cannabis.

Should we discuss the mess that we have with MMRSA, which is something we didn't get to vote on and which has led to a new slew of bans across the state?

Vote YES on AUMA and let's enjoy some actual legalization in this state, CO-style.

My observations on anti-AUMA people are that they are growers, and to a person they are white and seem to be relatively unaffected by the tens of thousands of arrests that still continue in this state, primarily of people of color, like my sons. They are incredibly vocal and prone to not being able to compromise. I consider AUMA a fantastic compromise, especially since it takes such specific steps to reduce arrests and further criminalization of cannabis-associated activities.


@indicabush -- the LA Times seems to publish articles that have a decidedly anti-cannabis slant, IMO.

I sincerely hope you are right.

Just reporting what Ruffhouse Studios reported last week.

With Dispensaries being raided in Oregon,

A Friends grow site in Colorado being raided by the Cops when the grower was not present. He had photos and MMJ copies for every patient he was growing Cannabis for.

The Cops seized and destroyed 42 plants leaving 6 plants behind for his personal use.

If you plan on growing make sure you have all of the i's dotted and your t's crossed.

It would also be a good idea to keep spare documents in the GROW room so the Cops can find them.
 
DemonTrich

DemonTrich

6,394
313
In the city I live in, it's against the law to grow. Not sure how a city can trump a state law. I have a huge problem with authority. But I do grow in another city, well ghetto to be precise.
 
Lovelylisa

Lovelylisa

23
13
I will be voting yes. We need to get this passed then hash out the dos and don'ts. In our city the medical marijuana patients band together went to every city hall meeting there was and didn't shut our mouths till we got them to allow us to grow our meds..
 
Seamaiden

Seamaiden

Living dead girl
23,596
638
In the city I live in, it's against the law to grow. Not sure how a city can trump a state law. I have a huge problem with authority. But I do grow in another city, well ghetto to be precise.
Specifically in California, with specific regard to MCRSA and AUMA, the ability to ban locally is built into the language.
 
Last edited:
Seamaiden

Seamaiden

Living dead girl
23,596
638
Everyone brings up WA, no one brings up CO (as the example of how to do it wrong). In the meantime, we're getting MCRSA shoved down our throats and bans of even personal cultivation in the deal.

You're right, no solidarity. I want the arrests to stop. Apparently you don't. I know that 215 never afforded us any real rights. AUMA will, especially where MCRSA doesn't. I want everyone to be able to enjoy cannabis, not just "patients." Why is there no love for recreational here? Oh, wait, I have that love.

The most vocal people I've been reading who are against AUMA are, to a person, white. And I suspect they're cash croppers as well (the anti-AUMA people I know are). They all say it's not good enough, but they don't seem to understand the true concept behind compromise. This is compromise, for everyone, that's what makes it so good. Not perfect, but then if we're shooting for 'perfect' I want to know, whose version? Because mine is different from yours is different from his is different from hers is different from theirs. Get it?
 
Last edited:
JCgrow

JCgrow

10
3
It's kind of messed up that there's legalization up for debate but the details aren't good enough for people to vote to legalize. Why not just replicate what Colorado has done and prosper?
 
S

SHIRDABZALOT

255
93
Go.ahead and vote yes.....and you will all get fucked over. I promise. If you wanna know the future look at Washington state. Rec took over, quality went down .....price doubled..now it's a class c felony to pass a joint to someone, you can buy legal weed but there is no place to smoke it. Taxes are at an astounding 37%!! Sound like a plan for the people?? I hope you cali folk can see this shit for what it really is....another way to screw over the patients and monopolize the industry. So please spread the word to the morons that think that "legalization is "good".
 
Blaze

Blaze

2,006
263
Like it or not we probably aren't going to get a better initiative the AUMA here in California. The cannabis community as a whole is too fractured, too naive, and too god damn short sighted to get their act together and actually push through an alternative. We have had DECADES to make this happen and the ball keeps getting dropped. Every. Single. Time.

Just look at what a mess CCHI and the other 8 proposed California legalization measures have become. The so called 'activists' behind them were so busy fighting among themselves, undermining all the other competing measures, and squabbling over minor details that not a single one has made it on the ballot yet, and probably won't. We have become our own worst enemy.

I just have lost all faith that the supposed cannabis 'activists' will EVER get their act together and accomplish something. Meanwhile AUMA does indeed guarantee cultivation rights, it will stop arrests, it will allow those convicted of cannabis offenses to have their expunged, and it will allow for legal commercial cultivation. It certainly is not perfect and I do have many concerns about it, but more and more I am leaning towards a 'yes' vote.

Furthermore a lot of people do not seem to realize that MMRSA will restrict access considerably in 2018. It will be a LOT harder to get a medical recommendation and there will be very few counties and cities that will allow cultivation. Without something like AUMA in place by 2018, a HUGE number of patients will be forced out onto the black market, and access will be even further restricted, vastly more so than anything under AUMA.
 
Seamaiden

Seamaiden

Living dead girl
23,596
638
Just look at what a mess CCHI and the other 8 proposed California legalization measures have become. The so called 'activists' behind them were so busy fighting among themselves, undermining all the other competing measures, and squabbling over minor details that not a single one has made it on the ballot yet, and probably won't. We have become our own worst enemy.
I have to put some big fucking BELLS on this.

And the anti-AUMA crowd (who are... let's just say they're not using their best communication skills, assuming they have them) don't seem to grasp what MMRSA is doing and will do--ALL without voter approval on a God damned thing. That, or they're so stuck in fucking medical, as though nobody got high for fun like EVER (and anyone who does for some reason doesn't have a right to?) that they can't see past themselves. A lot of the ones I've met recently are new self-proclaimed 'canna-warriors', people who've only recently learned that it can help their or a loved one's condition(s). I sit here thinking, "Where the FUCK were you in '96?"
 
Seamaiden

Seamaiden

Living dead girl
23,596
638
You are 100% correct in that regard, sir!
 
Seamaiden

Seamaiden

Living dead girl
23,596
638
MMRSA is illegal and will be shot down.
By whom? How? Based on what? The formation of the legislation brought forth to us by MMRSA has its basis in court rulings. For example, the right to fully ban all cultivation has come about via court rulings.

I'm sorry, but 215 has no integrity to be assaulted. It affords patients, and patients ONLY, a grand total of one right--affirmative defense. It affords no space for recreational users, nor is it a guarantee of anything else other than the ability to present the medical defense, and this part is absolutely key, in court. Is it necessary to explain what that means, in total?

And once the rulings started rolling in, patients started losing more and more access.

Those who are unwilling to compromise won't get us anywhere. I am tired of the arrests, they continue to this day. I am of the opinion that zero patients have more rights than any other individual, including the recreational user.

In the 20yrs since the passage of Proposition 215 we the People of California haven't really moved much further forward on our laws. Others have tried to get their propositions on the ballot and have failed.

Those who claim to be 'pro' yet who will advocate *not* passing laws that will allow for fewer arrests, expungement of records, and a relatively fairly regulated market are clearly only looking out for their own best interests.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom