Cannabis News

macbill

Oh No! Mr macbill!!
Staff member
Scientists discover the reason why anxious people smoke marijuana

In a study published this week in the journal Neuron, scientists describe a powerful molecule called 2-AG, which appears to disrupt the production and transfer of neurochemicals linked to anxiety across this neural highway — effectively halting an anxiety attack in its tracks. Cannabis works in much the same way, the researchers find. The new study, conducted in mice, shows 2-AG and cannabis act on the same receptors in the brain, the endocannabinoid system, which modulates anxiety.
 

Planck

believes in Dog
Personal Confession: I worry about this very thing quite a bit, and struggle with it, here at FC. Having lived abroad so long, particularly in the UK, my speech and the words I use have changed, much of my vocabulary really. My computer and devices' keyboards are set up for UK and my spelling has changed over time, FC is the only place really, where I communicate electronically with Americans. Friends and family make fun of me, friends give me shit to my face and family talks behind my back.

So I do worry about coming across bourgeois here or just a pretentious arsehole, but I'm also lazy and can't be bothered to switch back and forth in the hope that maybe strangers will "like" me more. So the spelling stays English-UK but I do translate certain words and measurements to be better understood by the majority. :tup:

FWIW I like your posts and now I like you too. Friends don't make fun of friends in my world at least. I have no time for those who build themselves up by beating another down. We will never please everyone so I figure why bother catering to the proudly ignorant. The lowest common denominator is exactly that, low and common. I want something better and I will have it. :2c:

I bet the students even wear fucking uniforms

I understand your point but suggest all students wear uniforms, some just come for Kelvin Kline or others. Many adults also wear uniforms often tribal in nature. At least they are not wearing bullet holes and black so there's that.

"We'll just sit back and observe those crazy Canadian colonials conduct these dangerous social experiments, thank you very much.

Happy to oblige. :brow:

"our country"? Hmmm. [checks IP address and email domain] Aaaaand it's a Russian troll. :goon:

:bowdown::bowdown::wave::clap::tup:
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Congress investigates lifting some cannabis restrictions
By Alicia Wallace, CNN Business

Updated 7:16 PM ET, Wed January 15, 2020

San Francisco (CNN Business)Cannabis continues to make history on Capitol Hill — albeit incrementally.

Although federal cannabis legalization may not be imminent, Congress is taking early steps to better understand how to research and regulate the complex plant.
The Health subcommittee of the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce on Wednesday joined the shortlist of subcommittees that have delved into cannabis. No votes were cast nor policy decisions made, but the 3 1/2-hour hearing — the first-ever cannabis hearing for the Energy and Commerce committee — provided windows into legislators' temperatures on cannabis legalization and the actions undertaken to-date by a trio of government agencies wielding significant influence over how cannabis is researched, possessed and consumed.

2020 could be a defining year for the cannabis industry

Serving as the backdrop for the "Cannabis Policies for the New Decade" hearing is a quasi post-Prohibition landscape where 11 states have legalized the sale and possession of cannabis for adult-use and 22 others have medical cannabis laws in place. At the same time, cannabis remains illegal federally, creating a rash of conflicts and complications in areas such as research, banking, taxes and commerce.
"The states are way ahead of where we are federally," Representative Greg Walden, a Republican from Oregon, which launched adult-use cannabis sales in 2015, a year after Colorado and Washington state started their recreational cannabis programs.
During Wednesday's hearing, legislators took a crack at cannabis' chicken-and-egg problem: Cannabis remains a Schedule I substance -- the most restrictive class and identified as having no medical use -- because of a lack of comprehensive research. Research, however, is hindered because of the Schedule I classification. Officials from the US Food and Drug Administration, the US Drug Enforcement Administration and the National Institutes of Health provided testimony.
"The federal government has hidden behind that Catch-22 for a long, long time," said Representative Joe Kennedy III, a Democrat from Massachusetts.
The University of Mississippi remains the sole supplier of research-grade cannabis for federally approved trials. And the cannabis that's available for research has been assailed by scientists as "sub-par" material that does not accurately represent the diverse array of products — and potencies — available for sale in states that have legalized recreational cannabis.
Matthew Strait, senior policy adviser for the DEA's Diversion Control Division, said the agency has sought to remove barriers to research and is moving "expeditiously" to craft additional regulations and expand the number of licensed cultivators.
The FDA's ongoing review of the wildly popular cannabis compound cannabidiol (CBD) remains ongoing, said Dr. Douglas Throckmorton, deputy director for regulatory programs at the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation of Research. He indicated his agency is evaluating research to determine CBD's safety and efficacy, weighing non-drug pathways for compounds derived from federally legal hemp, and creating avenues for new drug development involving cannabis compounds.

Testing drivers for cannabis is hard. Here's why

"We're looking at a full range of options," he said.
During their questioning, subcommittee members referenced several of the active cannabis-related bills before Congress, and asked if rescheduling or even descheduling cannabis would solve some of these ongoing conflicts.
Descheduling cannabis may indeed accelerate research, said Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the NIH's National Institute on Drug Abuse.
However, she quickly cautioned that doing so "may have unintended, negative consequences," including decreased perceptions of risk and potential harms to health.
 

Ramahs

Fucking Combustion (mostly) Since February 2017
I understand your point but suggest all students wear uniforms

Oh HELL NO! There is no way I'd attend an institution like that, and there is most certainly NO WAY I would stranglehold my children's ability to express their genuine selves in the most crucial years for them to do so by sending them to something like that. I honestly find it insulting and downright disgusting to require students to dress like fucking clones. Fuck that shit 100%.

It's sick enough that we make adults do it, much less our poor children.

giphy.webp
 
Last edited:

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
Oh HELL NO! There is no way I'd attend an institution like that, and there is most certainly NO WAY I would stranglehold my children's ability to express their genuine selves in the most crucial years for them to do so by sending them to something like that. I honestly find it insulting and downright disgusting to require students to dress like fucking clones. Fuck that shit 100%.

It's sick enough that we make adults do it, much less our poor children.

My wife choose her current job, in part, because she gets to wear the "uniform" (scrubs) of pajamas every day. Don't have to think or anything.

If you go to a Catholic school in the states, many have dress code uniforms as well. Families love it for a number of reasons, often having to do with cost. Kids don't tend to object either. For those not involved with the mileau, you find that even with a "uniform", no one is exactly dressed the same. Every person who wants to express themselves find some way. In a strict rule place, the difference might be a fold of a shirt in a certain way while looser rule places might have more obvious distinctions.

At the end, a child is not expressing xer genuine selves just because they dye their hair purple or wear a t-shirt with Che on the front. They are simply rebelling by breaking the custom/rule about hair color or by wearing a controversial thought. A person in a uniform demonstrate the same rebellion and express the same genuine self by rolling up one's cuff in an unapproved way or roll under the waist of a skirt so the legs show just a bit more. Maybe throw on a pin with a peace sign on it too.

The purple hair child with the controversial shirt wants to stand out. The rule of do what you want hurts that. Sure, there might be some who feel they are an alien with purple hair who finds the economic principles and treatment of women by Che to be standards to achieve and those might be hurt by uniforms. For the rest of us it's just easier and less stress. Uniforms build a sense of self where how one acts is more important than the brands one wears. Also, while kids can feel as alone in a uniform school as a non-uniform one, I suspect less loneliness if one feels one belongs and demonstrates that belonging every day.

Edit:
Even odd uniforms have a fairly high acceptance rates in the UK.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-29047752
 

Ramahs

Fucking Combustion (mostly) Since February 2017
My wife choose her current job, in part, because she gets to wear the "uniform" (scrubs) of pajamas every day. Don't have to think or anything.

If you go to a Catholic school in the states, many have dress code uniforms as well. Families love it for a number of reasons, often having to do with cost. Kids don't tend to object either. For those not involved with the mileau, you find that even with a "uniform", no one is exactly dressed the same. Every person who wants to express themselves find some way. In a strict rule place, the difference might be a fold of a shirt in a certain way while looser rule places might have more obvious distinctions.

At the end, a child is not expressing xer genuine selves just because they dye their hair purple or wear a t-shirt with Che on the front. They are simply rebelling by breaking the custom/rule about hair color or by wearing a controversial thought. A person in a uniform demonstrate the same rebellion and express the same genuine self by rolling up one's cuff in an unapproved way or roll under the waist of a skirt so the legs show just a bit more. Maybe throw on a pin with a peace sign on it too.

The purple hair child with the controversial shirt wants to stand out. The rule of do what you want hurts that. Sure, there might be some who feel they are an alien with purple hair who finds the economic principles and treatment of women by Che to be standards to achieve and those might be hurt by uniforms. For the rest of us it's just easier and less stress. Uniforms build a sense of self where how one acts is more important than the brands one wears. Also, while kids can feel as alone in a uniform school as a non-uniform one, I suspect less loneliness if one feels one belongs and demonstrates that belonging every day.

Edit:
Even odd uniforms have a fairly high acceptance rates in the UK.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-29047752

Nope. Fuck that. I 100% disagree.

And no. You don't get to put fucking words in my mouth. No FUCKING WAY.
I never said anything about colored hair or Che shirts. That's just insulting and incredibly shitty of you to do that.
 
Last edited:
Ramahs,

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
Nope. Fuck that. I 100% disagree.

And no. You don't get to put fucking words in my mouth. No FUCKING WAY.
I never said anything about colored hair or Che shirts. That's just insulting and incredibly shitty of you to do that.
I sincerely apologize if you felt I was putting words in your mouth. I agree you said noting of the sort. I was making an analogy to illustrate my point.
 

macbill

Oh No! Mr macbill!!
Staff member
I went to a Catholic School 3rd through 8th grade. We wore uniforms. Kids being kids, I remember a boy being teased because his clothes were threadbare. I agree that uniforms remove one avenue of disruption: displays of creative accouterment.
 

grampa_herb

Epstein didn't kill himself
Round here it seemed like we had an unofficial freak uniform in the early 70's; long hair, scuffed up jean jackets, frayed bell-bottom blue jeans with 6 inch slits cut both sides of the flare, and hiking boots.
 

BigJr48

Well-Known Member
Round here it seemed like we had an unofficial freak uniform in the early 70's; long hair, scuffed up jean jackets, frayed bell-bottom blue jeans with 6 inch slits cut both sides of the flare, and hiking boots.
Those were the good old days!!!
 
BigJr48,
  • Like
Reactions: Ramahs

Gunky

Well-Known Member
Hmnnn... Bless his little heart. :hmm:

Note to Democratic party pols: legalization is more popular than any party or politician, including you! Just go with it already. Get your ass on the right side of this issue. Resistance is futile.
 
Last edited:

Ramahs

Fucking Combustion (mostly) Since February 2017
I sincerely apologize if you felt I was putting words in your mouth. I agree you said noting of the sort. I was making an analogy to illustrate my point.

Okay. Now I feel bad for being a dick about it.
I apologize as well. I overreacted.

Round here it seemed like we had an unofficial freak uniform in the early 70's; long hair, scuffed up jean jackets, frayed bell-bottom blue jeans with 6 inch slits cut both sides of the flare, and hiking boots.

Ha ha. Bell Bottoms weren't as bad as these wide-leg Jnco jeans kids used to wear in the 90's. I had a few pairs. lol. We'd wear a chain wallet with them with a big ol' three-foot heavy steel chain (the size you'd lock a big ol' steel gate up with) from the hardware store that could serve double-duty as a weapon if one needed it.

eb8b16a76e4b35eaf816fefc6089a0bf.jpg


LoLz. Funny old days. :razz:
 
Last edited:

Gunky

Well-Known Member
He won't be getting my vote come November 4th
Bear in mind that Trump's attorney general, William Barr, wants to start federal prosecutions of states that legalized and bust people who are buying and selling legally under state rules. Federal legalization, when it arrives, will likely come in the form of legislation, not unilateral action by the president. So if you want federal legalization the best thing you as a voter can do is elect Democrats to Congress. The repubs are completely hopeless on this issue. As long as they control the Senate we will not see legalization.
 
Last edited:

Planck

believes in Dog
Or maybe the right question is when will they care?
Yep, I think that is the question.

Possibly;
When they and their friends and rich supporters gain more from legal than illegal.
When they are paid lavishly to care.
When they are forced to care, because their wealth and power is threatened.
When people start voting in their best interests.
When pigs can fly.
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
Even Moscow Mitch, dead set against cannabis, warmed to the idea of legal hemp when he saw that constituents could benefit (and possibly received contributions from that quarter). So who knows maybe someday canna-tax envy might spur him to move toward.... nah! I must contribute to his opponent this time.
 

Planck

believes in Dog
@Gunky your post reminds me of a song...

Mangy Fetlocks, The Quasi-Intellectual Existentialist Cowboy (a.k.a, Bruce W. Nelson) imagines that someday, Mitch McConnell will receive the recognition he so justly deserves, perhaps in the form of a blockbuster musical. Until such time, Mangy takes it upon himself to immortalize "Moscow Mitch" from the humble concrete stage of his "man-cave" garage.
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Marijuana shortages may continue for year or more

Illinois’ tight market is expected to linger longer than other states

IMG_CT-lines-2_2_1_4N6DSDTS.jpg

Long lines continue on the second day of recreational cannabis sales on Jan. 2 along Clark Street outside Sunnyside in
By Robert McCoppin

Legal marijuana shortages in Illinois are expected to last six months to a year or more, industry members warn, due to a lack of production capacity in the state.

The long lines, product shortages and store closures seen since the state authorized legal sales starting on New Year’s Day are not unusual for newly legal markets. But the tight market is expected to continue longer than in other states in part because Illinois has only 21 cultivation warehouses, far fewer than in many other states with legal cannabis.

The limit on the number of growers is a result of existing medical marijuana growers maintaining that they could supply the market without any new cultivation licenses — despite studies that predicted they could not meet the demand.

Shortages also stem from other factors, including the state’s previously small but rapidly growing medical market, the limited number of stores and having just six months to prepare.

One of the chief sponsors of the law, state Sen. Heather Steans, said initial shortages were to be expected following similar experiences in other states.

“Hopefully, within six months or a year or two, the supply gets ramped up so you’re not having the same challenges,” Steans said. “There’s an initial burst of excitement from the public, so some of it is the nature of the beast.”

In other states, while severe scarcities dissipated within days or weeks of the initial rush, in some cases it still took months to ramp up production to meet demand.

As in Illinois, at least one shop in Colorado ran out of weed within days of legalization in January 2014. A study showed the legal industry was supplying only about two-thirds of the total demand that first year, with the rest coming from the illicit market. But the outages were largely ironed out by springtime, and the state has since reached more of a balance between supply and demand, said Jim Burack, director of Colorado’s Marijuana Enforcement Division.

The key difference with Illinois is that Colorado started its program with about 200 growers, almost 10 times as many as in Illinois. The Rocky Mountain State also opened with about 145 licensed retail shops, compared with only 37 operating retail stores in Illinois. Colorado now has hundreds of growers and shops.

Elsewhere, other factors have slowed the rollout of legalization. When California required growers to meet new testing requirements for potency and pesticides in 2018 and 2019, news media reported, increases in testing wait times and test failures caused a product shortage. Once the labs expanded capacity and cultivators were able to conform with the more stringent requirements, the supply caught up.

Washington opened its retail pot program in 2014 with only about 20 stores, initially causing long lines, widespread shortages and high prices. But it had about 80 growers, and its market stabilized after more licenses were issued quickly, said Brian Smith, spokesman for the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board.

People initially thought the program had failed, but now the state has 1,100 growers and 500 or so stores, supplies have surged and prices have dropped steadily, Smith said.

He urged patience with the market. “There were a lot of people overreacting to how we got started,” Smith said.

In Canada, which started legal pot sales of flower in October 2018, some stores began running out of product within hours. Shortages were still rampant weeks later, and provinces limited hours of operation or cut off issuing new licenses.

Late last year, Canada allowed cannabis edibles, vaping products and extracts for the first time. Yet news reports, blaming slow and strict regulatory enforcement, say it could be two years or more before Canada gets an adequate supply.

Given the history elsewhere, analysts saw supply problems coming to the Midwest. A study of the Illinois market commissioned by lawmakers last year predicted that existing growers could meet only about half of peak demand for legal weed. Even growers and lawmakers warned there would be a lack of supply. But the Medical Cannabis Alliance of Illinois, representing the industry, convinced lawmakers there was no need for new full-size licenses.

Pam Althoff, executive director of the Cannabis Business Association of Illinois, predicted that legal growers could meet demand before new licenses are issued in May. “There’s always bumps with new things, but I think it’s going extraordinarily well,” she said.

Many factors worked against meeting the demand immediately, she said. Cultivators wanted to begin legalization in April to have time to ramp up production, but lawmakers wanted to start Jan. 1, she said. Also last year, the number of medical cannabis patients roughly doubled, increasing demand and causing shortages even before legalization.

It took months for growers to get permission to expand and start growing, with some not licensed until Dec. 23. It takes about four months to grow and process cannabis, so Althoff hopes new crops will be harvested by spring.

Other industry members are not so optimistic. Growers note the entire process of getting permits, building or expanding a warehouse, and producing a crop can take a year or more. One medical cultivator only started growing last year, four years after medical pot licenses were issued.

Lawmakers authorized up to 40 new small “craft” growers, initially limited to 5,000 square feet, compared with 210,000 square feet for existing growers. But those craft grower licenses aren’t required to be approved until July 1, while 75 new stores will be approved by May 1.

Business applicants will get bonus points toward a license if they are “social equity” applicants, meaning people who have been disproportionately hurt by the war on drugs, including those from poor areas or those who’ve been arrested for low-level pot offenses.

Social equity applicants also will pay half the licensing fees and will be eligible for startup loans. Those loans will be financed by the licensing fees paid by existing businesses — that’s partly why the law allowed the medical shops to open first, Steans said. In addition, state regulators had already done background checks on the existing growers and shops, whereas new licensees will have to undergo extensive vetting.

On the other side of the equation, demand for legal cannabis in the first week of sales in Illinois was among the highest of any state, with $20 million sold in the first 12 days. Even before recreational sales started, medical cannabis patients were stocking up, in some cases clearing out products at dispensaries.

State marijuana czar Toi Hutchinson noted the strong sales and pointed out that Illinois had far more stores than its nearest competitor, Michigan, which opened its market late last year with only four shops.

In response to concerns by some medical patients that they can’t find the products they want, Hutchinson emphasized that stores are required to reserve a one-month inventory of cannabis for patients, or face fines or other discipline.

But state regulation isn’t the only issue. Compounding the problem in Illinois, some medical dispensaries have gotten state licenses to sell recreational cannabis but were prevented from selling it by local governments.

Adding another degree of difficulty, it’s not an ideal time to raise money for expansions.

The value of publicly traded cannabis companies in Canada, where marijuana is legal, has fallen to a fraction of what it was in 2018. Investors now want to see profits rather than just growth projections, industry members said, and are stingier with their money.

Because it can take a year to get a grow house up to full capacity, cannabis industry research firm New Frontier Data is not projecting a full supply in Illinois for one to two years, senior economist Beau Whitney said.

“You fix it by issuing additional licenses,“ he said. Until then, he added, “look for continued constraints on supply, higher-than-market prices and a robust illicit market.”

To preserve inventory and stay open, many retailers have imposed limits on how much customers can buy. Last week, Mission Dispensary in Chicago’s South Shore neighborhood held people to $200 maximum purchases, 4.5 grams of flower, 100 milligrams of edibles and two vaping cartridges, said Kris Krane, president of 4Front Ventures, which runs the store.

For the shortest wait times, he advised shopping on a Monday or Tuesday afternoon — after lunch but before work lets out.

“You definitely get a little grumbling, ‘I waited in line for an hour and all I could buy was this much,’ ” Krane said. “But most people are just happy they can come into a store and buy legally. They’re willing to abide by these growing pains. People might be more upset three or four months from now (if shortages continue). But we can’t grow the plants any faster.”
 
Top Bottom