Cannabis is one of the lesser known Cancer treatments. Edibles as well as CBD drops have been known to help with chronic pain and illness. When tested in animals dying of deadly illness the animals were revived and lived longer than those who did not recieve cannabis treatment. People who are not ill might not need medicine. Cannabis might not be for everyone. My real concern is the use of pesticides on cannabis especially medical cannabis.
Arguably the more dangerous that a drug is, the more imperative it is for said drug to be legalized and regulated. Existing Canadian policy is predicated on the idea that if you already experimented with heroin supplied by the black market, and a bureaucrat has deemed you an addict, you should get free supply. The problems with this policy is that (a) you do not need to be an addict in order to overdose on a drug, (b) a bureaucrat can fail to properly designate you as an addict, and (c) free supply creates its own perverse incentives, such as supply diversion.
If we had a regulated market and we gave designated addicts money with which to potentially buy supply, without giving supply per se, we would solve most of the above problems.
Melissa Lantzman may have been dubious to call you a "radical drug advocate", but now you do know one. :)
I remember there has been concern about street drugs being cut with worse drugs (for instance, marijuana that contains traces of crystal meth, or heroin that contains traces of fentanyl) that resulted in severe reactions, up to and including death, in users taking their typical dose but not knowing it contained another substance. I wonder to what extent legalisation of marijuana has reduced cases of this, and whether this might inform policy concerning drugs like heroin, especially in our efforts to combat the scourge of fentanyl.
Cannabis is one of the lesser known Cancer treatments. Edibles as well as CBD drops have been known to help with chronic pain and illness. When tested in animals dying of deadly illness the animals were revived and lived longer than those who did not recieve cannabis treatment. People who are not ill might not need medicine. Cannabis might not be for everyone. My real concern is the use of pesticides on cannabis especially medical cannabis.
Arguably the more dangerous that a drug is, the more imperative it is for said drug to be legalized and regulated. Existing Canadian policy is predicated on the idea that if you already experimented with heroin supplied by the black market, and a bureaucrat has deemed you an addict, you should get free supply. The problems with this policy is that (a) you do not need to be an addict in order to overdose on a drug, (b) a bureaucrat can fail to properly designate you as an addict, and (c) free supply creates its own perverse incentives, such as supply diversion.
If we had a regulated market and we gave designated addicts money with which to potentially buy supply, without giving supply per se, we would solve most of the above problems.
Melissa Lantzman may have been dubious to call you a "radical drug advocate", but now you do know one. :)
I remember there has been concern about street drugs being cut with worse drugs (for instance, marijuana that contains traces of crystal meth, or heroin that contains traces of fentanyl) that resulted in severe reactions, up to and including death, in users taking their typical dose but not knowing it contained another substance. I wonder to what extent legalisation of marijuana has reduced cases of this, and whether this might inform policy concerning drugs like heroin, especially in our efforts to combat the scourge of fentanyl.
Your articles are so informative and thoughtful. Always. Thank you