|
Meta Ridley posted:Colorado voted against this in 2006, 59 to 40. I am surprised public opinion changed so drastically in 6 years This law was well written and that one wasn't. Also running a ballot measure that increases income for the state during financial iffy times using revenue from something that MANY people perceive as a vice that they don't partake of was strategically perfect. We have it now, let's see if we can keep it. I'm really torn about going to a dispensary today though. I spent the evening with my city counselor and her husband who's a county commissioner and we talked about implementing the law for quite a while. The city already has a panel of experts in place to set a THC limit for intoxication because the law points at local control. This will be screwed up all over the place because Colorado ALWAYS starts with local control and then magically discovers that people can travel from one local to another and THEN passes a law regulating everything equally. The other problem is the tax provision. We have TABOR which says that all tax changes must pass a vote by the people. This measure creates the requirement of a tax so that part will play out in the courts. Someone probably has a brief written already against implementing the tax and someone else already has a repeal amendment written for 2013 based solely on the inability of the state to implement dope sales BECAUSE there wasn't a parallel bill creating the tax. Like I said; I hope we can keep this law.
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 14:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:40 |
|
|
Meta Ridley posted:Colorado voted against this in 2006, 59 to 40. I am surprised public opinion changed so drastically in 6 years This law was well written and that one wasn't. Also running a ballot measure that increases income for the state during financial iffy times using revenue from something that MANY people perceive as a vice that they don't partake of was strategically perfect. We have it now, let's see if we can keep it. I'm really torn about going to a dispensary today though. I spent the evening with my city counselor and her husband who's a county commissioner and we talked about implementing the law for quite a while. The city already has a panel of experts in place to set a THC limit for intoxication because the law points at local control. This will be screwed up all over the place because Colorado ALWAYS starts with local control and then magically discovers that people can travel from one local to another and THEN passes a law regulating everything equally. The other problem is the tax provision. We have TABOR which says that all tax changes must pass a vote by the people. This measure creates the requirement of a tax so that part will play out in the courts. Someone probably has a brief written already against implementing the tax and someone else already has a repeal amendment written for 2013 based solely on the inability of the state to implement dope sales BECAUSE there wasn't a parallel bill creating the tax. Like I said; I hope we can keep this law.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 02:10
|
|
|
Docjowles posted:Disclaimer: I am not even kind of a lawyer They way it's been read is that the medical dispensaries will probably be chosen to sell but that's still a year off since the feds have been asked to comment officially on enforcement and Obama was essentially silent on it during the election. The governor of the state made his money selling alcohol and opposes it but acknowledges that it is the law of the land, we think he's just hoping it doesn't happen under his watch which nobody really understands. Now it's in the hands of the lawyers - as far as taxation, apparently that won't happen until the next election since TABOR is interpreted as NO new taxes without voter approval implying that sale could be implemented but not taxed.....yet. Or something. This was strategic since running several ballot measures could have killed them all and running one answered a very clear question; Colorado likes local control and doesn't really have a problem with dope. The way the MM laws are written I could go to a dispensary, complain of back problem to an on site doctor and receive a card (I believe there is no waiting period but I don't KNOW that) then buy my pot right then. So really pot is legal in Colorado, this law just states the fact unambiguously. Also they CAN and actually have to implement another aspect which is the possession part (not that it was enforced much anymore anyway), as of the signing by the governor which must occur in 30 days, you can possess. That part is done. Oh yeah, there are words there about having a weight OR a number of plants and I look forward to setting aside a pot growing plot! I have to say that I've yet to talk to a politician at the local level who isn't ALL happy about the revenue prospects. My real interest is in the public health aspects of getting pot offenders out of prison and back into life and I think that this is a GREAT step in that direction.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 02:42
|
|
|
I'm an epidemiologist and I get called in to consult on study design and analytically approach occasionally. I got a call a couple of weeks back to talk about a spatial analysis an investigator was doing and it turned out to be related to this thread. The paper discussed how the various regulatory approaches taken by states regulating marijuana dispensaries played out in the real world. The authors applied the regulatory decisions of five states to the city and county of Denver and then looked at which census blocks the dispensaries ended up in. I'm way, way left politically so it pains me to say this but; the less regulation the more social justice. I'll back up a second; social justice is a concept that identifies positives and negatives and allocates them equitably. That applies to everything from taxes to liquor stores to roads to parks to coal fired power plants. The idea is that if negatives and positives effect everyone then we aren't exploiting people as badly. So the authors have an unpublished paper circulating asking the question; "is a marijuana dispensary a LULU?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locally_unwanted_land_use The reason the paper isn't published is that reviewers appear split pretty much equally on the question so there is no consensus on how to edit the paper for acceptance. So we really can't say if a dispensary is a LULU or not so we can't say from a social justice perspective whether regulations are forcing them into neighborhoods that suffer and do not benefit from them. Regardless; Denver's approach which is the most libertarian of the five results in the least disparity as measured by placement in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods and in neighborhoods with low median income. The next step is to bring together dispensary owners and do some focus groups with them to discover how they make decisions about placement, profit margin, population served and stuff like that. It's a really interesting time to look at legalization from the perspective of social justice and public health. Of course next year when we pass an amendment adding a tax to sales all of those potentially non-LULU dispensaries will very likely become liquor stores that are definitely LULU, will serve the local neighborhood and will do, well, pretty much anything a liquor store does to a location. Personally the only rational approach I see is to require consumers to use a dope ID and then track the users use. I only say that from the perspective of public health because it will let us understand from the very beginning the real costs of marijuana. I think that we'll be able to show that they are lower than alcohol. You use less and behave better while you're using it. We'll also find addiction genes down the road and potentially direct individualized health services specific to people who have trouble quitting when they want to. Stuff like that that we can't do with alcohol or cigarettes since the horse left the barn already. Our local governments are already rolling on intoxication levels, enforcement regulations and the other necessary parts off incorporating a new, well, vice for lack of a better word. Now that Hick has signed off and the feds are acting like it's a states rights thing (for now), the only real mess will be next years elections when the goddamn puritans will oppose legalization on TABOR grounds. Oh yeah, here's the mildly odd letter sent to faculty by the president of CU a few days ago; quote:When Colorado voters in November passed Amendment 64, which legalized small amounts of marijuana for personal use, it led to a number of questions. Most uncertainty surrounds the conflict between the new state law and federal law, under which marijuana remains illegal. Amendment 64 will be signed into law in January and take effect in January 2014. I wonder who edited that....
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 19:44
|
|
|
He knows that Boulder is a party school, he just doesn't like it. Here's the thing though, on my campus students bring in $30m in tuition and fees. Research brings in $300m in grants and contracts. He knows that the research dollars are there because of serious scientists coming here because they like Colorado. What he appears to be missing is that they aren't going to leave because one of our campuses is a party school and has 420 celebrations - we don't give a poo poo because it doesn't effect us at all (and quite a lot of us support it). He thinks that opposing pot supports the research cash cow because he doesn't understand what motivates us. He's a business dude and he should really stick to university investments and leave the cultural commentary alone. We like it here, we're fine, just stop.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Apologies for snipping just a section out of a useful post, but I gotta take issue with this. It really sounds to me like you're missing potential downsides of compiling this information because the data are so useful in aggregate. It's too easy to imagine situations where the individual is prejudiced by the availability of this information to some authority figure in question, be it a boss, the police, or whoever. For example, I'd bet that the list of daily smokers becomes a prime go-to for who to check out or raid for other drug charges, whether or not its use for that purpose is officially acceptable. It's a good point and I admit to my bias. My reasoning is based on finally putting to sleep the whole argument that dope is worse in some way than alcohol or cigarettes. If I can get a reasonable sample of consistent users I can look at health outcomes more clearly but you're exactly right that the likelihood of misuse of identifying data probably outweighs the public health benefits. I'll just recruit some of the new crop of users and do the study that way! Another aspect of tracking use though is making it palatable to the people who oppose it. Like I posted a long while back in this thread, I spent election night with my county commissioner and a city council member talking about the real life implementation of 64. The city council member was working on the intoxication issue with the police and the commissioner was interested in the zoning issues. The zoning question is what I discussed with the urban planner from the post above. At the moment the consensus of the commissioners and the urban planning folks is that a dispensary is probably not a LULU right now BECAUSE of the requirement that users have a medical reason for use (however silly) and obey the laws about where and when they smoke - limited selling is politically palatable. There's also a requirement that you can only open a single dispensary I believe. Again, limitations are palatable and dispensaries have proliferated about as far as they can at present (due to zoning). Part of the "regulate it like alcohol" approach suggests that dispensaries are poised to become VERY popular and VERY profitable but also become LULUs depending on how the law is implemented. "Not in my neighborhood" is a very strong political argument. Hickenloopers' special dope task force is going to have to recommend something realistic that is politically acceptable to everyone and zoning is probably where they're going with it. That's on the supply side, the demand side needs a political solution as well and it might not be limited to >18 with valid ID (even though it's stated that way in the law). If they take the existing system and remove the physician they can still tell any opponents that users can be tracked for abuse using the cards. Like I said, I agree that this will be abused but I think that it will probably happen that way. I would LOVE to be proved wrong in that because it's just a weed but if they DO regulate it then I want the data to PROVE that it's just a weed. The thing is that none of this nit picking matters because; quote:(b) POSSESSING, GROWING, PROCESSING, OR TRANSPORTING NO MORE THAN SIX MARIJUANA PLANTS, WITH THREE OR FEWER BEING MATURE, FLOWERING PLANTS, AND POSSESSION OF THE MARIJUANA PRODUCED BY THE PLANTS ON THE PREMISES WHERE THE PLANTS WERE GROWN, PROVIDED THAT THE GROWING TAKES PLACE IN AN ENCLOSED, LOCKED SPACE, IS NOT CONDUCTED OPENLY OR PUBLICLY, AND IS NOT MADE AVAILABLE FOR SALE. As to your less speculative example; do you also present to the court the count of wine bottles in the recycling bin?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 18:33
|
|
|
SilentD posted:You can manufacture opiate based drugs really easily if you have poppies. Which aren't hard to grow or obtain. A guy I knew way back when was doing his anthropology masters project on opium manufacture by doing it himself using the methods of the 1860's. He was going to extended his work by smoking his own opium and then breaking his new habit. The title was going to be something like "Opium Cultivation, Processing, Use and Addiction". When I knew him he had completed harvesting some amount of poppies and had other fields planted around the state. I don't know if he actually got enough product to get addicted but he was one friggin motivated guy so I know he tried!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:I mean seriously like right now I'm picturing that marijuana is fully legalized and RJ Reynolds comes to market. Packs of pre-made weed cigs. Standardized chunks of processed weed to load into smoking implement or vaporizer in reliable "dosages" and sizes. Possibly even mass produced edibles. The way medical marijuana is implemented in Co suggests that RJR will have a hard time with the market. Shops are licensed to individuals and each individual can only have one shop as far as I know. I'm not as good at the growing laws but I think that they work on a similar principal, one physical location with a set number of plants contingent on the licenses to supply you have from dispensaries. I don't think that the new law changes that and Hick's task force is very likely to keep the zoning and supply side as it stands and tweek the sellers. I don't see a big door open for a big company to corner the cheap weed market. I grew up in Virginia in the 80's and smoked very little. What I did smoke was overwhelmingly harsh, nasty and made me paranoid as hell. Once in a RARE while something else would move through the market and it was a HUGELY different experience, not painful, very mellow and no paranoia at all for me. What is currently available at dispensaries in Colorado is a lot more like the later than the former. I really look forward to the implementation of full legalization because I want to experiment with the stuff Morphix described - treat pot like a fine, local brewery and tailor your experience for what you actually want!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2012 03:23
|
|
|
I just found out that a colleague was accepted onto Hickenloopers commission! I'm hoping that I can help him out from the public health/epidemiology side and actually contribute to this effort. Colorado already has the least disparity in placement of dispensaries and I think that he'll propose keeping distribution to the current dispensaries with the same rules about one person = one license. The problem is going to come when the community sees the dispensaries as being unwanted due to traffic or local use or something, then the more wealthy communities will shut down the local ones increasing the overall disparity. Anyway, I HOPE I can transfer some good, current data here as the process continues!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
Radbot posted:In other news, Colorado localities are starting to take on A64, and surprisingly, it isn't the Springs that has the problem: Here's Greenwood Village; http://www.city-data.com/city/Greenwood-Village-Colorado.html Here's who lives there; quote:White alone - 11,795 (84.7%) Here's where they live; quote:Estimated median household income in 2009: $107,593 (it was $116,147 in 2000) It's a small, conservative part of Denver with lots of rich white people. I expect them to fight based on exactly the grounds they cite and lose completely. Not unexpected. NathanScottPhillips quote:e: Also I should say that the vast majority of MMJ dispensary sales are being flipped on the black market. People buy a stock with their card and then sell to their friends that don't have a card for a small mark up. Once retail shops open up, there would be no reason to do this so I suspect dedicated MMJ shops will start to dry up. You don't actually know that because that data isn't available. I know this because the most recent work on dispensaries can't even look at the people that use them, they're still mapping the friggin' things and looking at social disparities in their distribution across Denver county! I talked to one of the guys that does that research who's on Hicks pot board and collecting just exactly that data is what we're going to try to do in the near future. Downtown campus of UCD is pulling in people from several disciplines (including mine) to try to determine whether a dispensary is even a negative for the community. One possible outcome from the pot board is to suggest that only existing, licensed dispensaries be the source of sale for legal pot. The cities and counties are going to try to go after new dispensaries using zoning (if they want to oppose) but we already have the most equitable distribution of any state with MMJ so we think they'll lose eventually. The dispensaries exist and I think it likely that they will become the same thing as liquor stores in the near future. [edit]I didn't see this posted yet, here's the Task Force; http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellit...5&ssbinary=true ChlamydiaJones fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Feb 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/marijuana-task-force-give_n_2721084.html [quote]DENVER -- Marijuana tourism is on the way to Colorado, under a recommendation made Tuesday by a state task force to regulate the drug made legal by voters last year. But Colorado should erect signs in airports and borders telling visitors they can't take pot home, the task force recommended. Colorado's marijuana task force was assembled to suggest regulations for pot after voters chose to flout federal drug law and allow its use without a doctor's recommendation. Made up of lawmakers, law enforcement authorities and marijuana activists, the task force agreed Tuesday that the constitutional amendment on marijuana simply says that adults over 21 can use the drug, not just Colorado residents. If lawmakers agree with the recommendation, tourists would be free to buy and smoke marijuana. "Imposing a residency requirement would almost certainly create a black market for recreational marijuana in the state," said Rep. Dan Pabon, a Denver Democrat who sits on the task force. Tourists could see purchasing caps though, possibly as low as an eighth of an ounce per transaction. Afraid that marijuana tourism could open the door for traffickers to load up and take it across state borders for illegal sale, task force members agreed that non-residents should be able to buy only limited amounts, though a specific amount wasn't set. "Marijuana purchased in Colorado must stay in Colorado," Pabon warned. "We could attract greater federal scrutiny and displeasure of our neighbors," if marijuana flows across state lines, he said.[quote] I really don't know how this is going to work out. Acknowledging tourism seems like and interstate commerce problem. I'm hoping that this specific agreement doesn't attract the attention of the feds. Keeping pot in your state, however much it's only on paper, at least seems to keep it a states rights issue. Telling people to come on in, while honest, will probably get a federal legal challenge.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2013 15:44
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:The alternative is to say "only residents can buy pot from the store", which will just open up the black market for native resellers. The government obviously won't get any sort of money from illegal transactions, and people are gonna loving buy marijuana anyway (same as they do in texas or illinois) so it's better to advocate the solution that lets them regulate+tax all sales within the state. I'd think that any pot that could be sold to non residents would have to be bought (and taxed). Of course that doesn't count the plants you can grow but that isn't generating tax income anyway. Anyway their still putting buy limits for non natives so a person from Utah will just go store to store or buy in bulk off the market. I'm just suggesting that saying "tourism" could easily get the feds thinking about the commerce clause when saying "natives only" might do so a little less. We'll see though because that's the approach!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Basically the only determining factor for 2016 is going to be the results of the 2014 election, and there will be only two possible decisions based on that election, and I can basically guarantee that "legalizing marijuana" will not be part of the national platform. National issue or not, Colorado will pass the tax that's on the ballot right now and then profit from legal, regulated marijuana until the rest of the country gets its collective head out of its collective rear end. Yay us!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2013 15:01
|
|
|
19 o'clock posted:I'll have to take a photo of the countdown ads in the local paper. I am very excited for legal weed here in Colorado. As I am about to hit thirty drinking isn't very fun and hangovers are miserable. I want a legal alternative that doesn't leave me feeling like garbage the next day. You and me both my friend. Aurora city council is rocking this even though they want to restrict the number of shops. I think they just want to contribute SOMETHING so they don't look like sock puppets. I must remember to scout out a January 1 shop though!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2013 15:51
|
|
|
The $7 million in state redcard money will be earmarked for research in marijuana therapeutics. I am looking forward to writing one of those grants and it makes my head absolutely spin. I care about stupid rear end legislation that is based on nothing and marijuana legislation is the peak of that. I care about examining it using evidence and then seeing it changed based on that evidence. It looks like we are going to have a chance to look at many of the positive claims that have been made in a rigorous way an report the results WITH the support of industry. That's huge but its because Colorado understands that doing it right RIGHT NOW will end this stupid argument once and for all. This is an amazing time to be in Colorado.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Here are some questions that will be answered in the next couple of years using weed money; "does Charlotte's Web work?" "can cannabinoids function as insulin sensitizers?" "can cannabinoids reduce muscle cramping after intense exercise?" "is using the lung as a delivery system for cannabinoids associated with emphysema?" same as above but for "chronic bronchitis, pulmonary vascular remodeling, airway wall thickening?" (we already know about symptoms like sputum overproduction and coughing) "is weed associated with physical addiction?" "is weed associated with cardiovascular changes?" (and none of those questions relate to the monstrous amount of lab work that needs to be done) But most importantly; can the marijuana industry (and others) influence the Colorado legislature to earmark some percentage of the recreational marijuana revenue for a consistent stream of research funding to test the medical marijuana claims of efficacy (and can they do it before the feds legalize weed and reduce our state income)? We are going to understand more about marijuana and how it effects human health over the next few years than we've learned in the last several decades. If you have access you should do a WebOfScience search on marijuana/cannabis/whatever molecule you like and look at the fields of research that pop up. Tobacco has ~97,000 publications and ~85% are in ten fields that cross behavioral science, chemistry, molecular folding, imaging and addiction. Marijuana? 9,000 papers and the same percentage are in three fields; psychology, psychiatry and addiction. The state of marijuana related research is so pitifully bad that having ANY laws that claim a scientific basis is laughable. We're going to change that and change it very soon.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Dumb question, obviously this is an improvement, but what is the research situation going to be like? I presume you still won't be able to get Federal dollars for anything to do with an illegal drug. Will universities and such be able to touch this at all, or will this be entirely private-sector? There is an NIH/NCBI RFA that is going to become available May 5th; http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAS-14-020.html It's not explicitly Colorado and other states can design studies that will let them apply for it. But the RFA is written in such a way that Colorado researchers will likely have an incentive to apply. The science has to be tight but it's a full R01 with federal dollars. The state money is from Medical Marijuana sales. Revenue from that source go to a specific organization by statute and that organization can use the funds for specific purposes. Some of that money is making its way back into research via a state initiated RFA that's also upcoming. The president of my university isn't interested in marijuana funding but the money is real and some of it returns to the university so writing a grant for it will result in improved finances overall. Also the core focus of the research is on claims made by the industry and medical users; they are seriously interested in establishing what their product/treatment actually does. I've talked to some of them and I'm convinced that they will take the bad with the good and actually want to know. So no private sector dollars are in play right now and they should probably stay where they are because of potential conflict of interest with research. One of the reasons that this money is in the legislature now is that the state is asking DOJ for a ruling on institutions that accept funds generated from marijuana sales. Once that's clear they'll probably allocate to the funding administrators quickly. There are still institutions in the state that say that they will completely prohibit their researchers from doing this work using money generated by marijuana sales. Researchers at that specific institution(the one I have in mind) are approaching researchers at other institutions that have not banned the work, to be collaborators because we really need to know the answer to this one. It could be a breakthrough but it could also be random chance. There is no way to know without applying rigorous study designs to this treatment. [b]goodness[b] it looks like that's true but its based on anecdotal evidence and that will change with any luck at all. The families of kids with very serious seizure conditions are moving here seeking treatment and that treatment has not been tested in a rigorous way. As far as I can tell, everyone up and down the line knows that there is a strong likelihood that not all kids(or adults) can be treated with this. They also feel very strongly that some kids can do very well on this treatment, thus their emphasis on the therapeutic effects of marijuana.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
May I please take us back to the point where we don't actually have much in the way of efficacy studies on the therapeutic effects of marijuana? Especially by strain? Apparently one drug company is running trials on the anti-seizure effects of certain cannabinoids that it intends to market as therapeutic but at the same time there are reports of varying effects of that strain on kids. There are also reports that when the kids arrive in Colorado seeking this therapy for their kid and the kid actually get evaluated by a neurologist, that there are obvious treatments available for the specific type of seizure disorder the kid has. Anecdotal of course but it indicates the state of the science and the state of current therapy for certain disorders (and it's not great). So before we re-enter the debate of "Red Card" use versus "Red Cards as admission to an exclusive club", we should try looking at actual data. We will likely never know the magnitude of a wealth effect. You can speculate all day long but you'll never actually know. There were people abusing the systems and physicians with prescription rights advocating for a personal belief in efficacy, no question about it, but the magnitude of that effect is not known. Also there are >100,000 people with Red Cards in Colorado and > 250,000 that have applied and allowed the card to laps, died or never actually used it. This line of questioning is not productive to science and we should proceed with the opportunity that we have; we CAN TEST THESE ASSERTIONS now and we should. Let's do this right, right now.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
What would it take to get you to move to Colorado if you're interested in marijuana research? How about a funding stream for clinical research of several million dollars per year released as grants by a state organization in $500,000/year, two year grants every year? Maybe more grants for $250,000/year, two years. We'll see but I wouldn't bother applying if I weren't a Colorado based researcher  The commitment would be from the state as a percentage of the total recreational income but the time frame would be at least five years of funding for this granting source. I think that this will happen and I HOPE that we can guarantee the stream for longer than that. Oh and I hope that I can get one or two of the grants! This would be a game changer for marijuana research and some of the right people know it now!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
Bruce Benson, the president of University of Colorado, has always made his opinion clear that he would not allow any marijuana research to go on on HIS university campuses. He has now articulated how he's going to stop it. He's going to set unreasonably strict (and frankly impossible to attain) standards for that research;quote:To: University of Colorado Research Faculty So essentially there is no way to perform research on marijuana within the University of Colorado system. The good news is that the University of Washington might be less blinkered and shortsighted and they will be looking to do this research so it will get done. Bruce Benson would rather people expose themselves to marijuana based on hearsay and limited research rather than to simply allow researchers in his state to do the cutting edge research that needs to be done. I hope that history remembers that he failed Colorado with his actions.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Those aren't his regulations though, it's the DEA (and other federal agencies)'s onerous requirements on marijuana related research, he's just saying they have to follow federal law. Given how much universities rely on federal grants, that's not entirely unreasonable, but at the same time, most indications are the government isn't interested in going after stuff like that anymore. I agree that he didn't set any new standards in that message, what he did was set the standard to remove any advantage research could glean from living in a state where it's legal. It also sets a standard that doesn't allow research into actual substances used by people on the street which is again the strictest possible interpretation of existing standards and completely separates the university from actual public health. The good thing is that there are other institutions that will not follow that standard (at least they aren't yet) and the research can be done there. At this point between $7 and $10 million in research funds will become available in the next few months and nobody who isn't already in the DEA marijuana use pipeline will be able to apply for it at the largest research institution in the state. Our legislature is discussing research and federal funding of institutions with the DOJ right now but this move by Benson quashes any directive DOJ puts forward on the subject. As an example of Benson's bias, here's his official interpretation of a symposium we had last week. I attended it with several other researchers and none of us recognize what this guy is writing about due to the anti-marijuana spin in the article; quote:MARIJUANA SYMPOSIUM FEATURES UNIVERSITY HEALTH AND PUBLIC POLICY EXPERTS If you didn't attend then it's hard to describe the bias in the article. The general feeling as people were leaving was that we'd be going forward with research because the overwhelming evidence as presented was; "very little effect, some known negatives with potentially positive therapeutic benefits" also "the research that exists is severely limited".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Schedule I makes that really hard. Maybe it could happen through state funding where it's legal. Even then it would probably need to be run by a Ph.D. or an M.D. who doesn't care about his CSA license. That's likely to make an IRB skeptical. We had exactly this discussion today in a room full of researchers and industry representatives. Academia can't dose but we can observe so we're writing up grants to recruit several cohorts for different purposes; pulmonary, edible, testing medicinal claims, just about everything we can think of. Anyone out there that has done significant research in specific areas that is interested in pointing out current holes in research will be listened too - peer reviewed manuscripts pointing out holes primarily but searches that return zero results will also be considered. We MAY try for a comprehensive review of gaps and priorities and shoot for a publication in a high end general science journal to get good distribution. Don't know about that one just yet though. The state funding will have to be filtered through academic and institutional interpretation of federal laws which is a fairly huge pile of poo poo at the moment. The DEA/NIDA research standards can take years to address and by that time GW will have specific CBD combinations patented which will be an even huger pile of poo poo. I'm not happy with GW at the moment, this should be whole plant research and THEN drilling into specific proteins. There is also a company that shall go unnamed that has a research staff in place with interest in genetics, plant microbiome, strain composition and several other cool biochem irons in the fire. I'm still very skeptical that academia will be really cutting edge due to administration crap but we MIGHT be able to help industry do some very cool studies that we can't do.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
adocious posted:Why is this? Is it just that there's no way to secure funding via NIH/NSF grants or something like that, or are academics specifically barred from giving cannabis to subjects by some law? Would an independently-funded study still be unable to do so? Because most academics don't exist in a void, we're not independent contractors in most cases. If you want a career in academia and you've gotten a doctorate then part of your career path is affiliating with an institution and using that institution as a backdrop to conduct research, write grants and collaborate on research. Jones from Harvard can do this better than Jones from Bob'sUniversityInOmaha. So in my case the university I'm affiliated with has stated loudly that we will not be conducting any marijuana based research that takes advantage of the state we live in (essentially). The university president uses the federal laws and scheduling of marijuana as the reason for this decision. We, as researchers who are using the name of the university to do our research and get our funding, suggest that performing research on the marijuana that is currently in circulation is a better decision than to use the standard produced by NIDA in Mississippi. There are problems with that; the NIDA standard is a standard but it bears very little resemblance to what is being used on the street BUT it IS a standard and it is free(once you pass a bunch of tests). At least two institutions that do research are being told to follow a standard defined by lawyers and not scientists and that's bad public health in my opinion. The institutions are also protecting themsleves because schedule 1 is a federal crime and the feds can shut down an institution that uses funds generated by marijuana, and especially uses those funds to research marijuana and ESPECIALLY uses those funds to research the therapeutic benefits of that use (that's all funds including student loans, infrastructure and lots of other stuff). ReverendCode one way to address the issues above is to use open source publishing for your results and to seek funds from industry. We're considering this and industry will do some research using its own funds. We all have to consider the tobacco industry though since that relationship sucked, was exploited and ruined many careers in the past. Nobody wants that poo poo to happen again. Industry is employing serious scientists and ethics guidelines will be published fairly soon. The really big problem is DOJ and institutions that are very, very twitchy to do this research. We REALLY want to dose you, believe me, especially for driving, intoxication delta studies and measurement of current versus past use but we can't. Yet.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
Elotana posted:So far all the state CBD measures have had two things in common: The laws also support GW in their efforts to patent a specific cannabinoid once they've shown efficacy. I say that because GW has supported the efforts in each state that has moved in that direction because "whole plant medicine" doesn't generate income (once the seeds are in circulation). That said, the farm bill is roundly lauded as hugely supportive of CBD research and future studies since less than 0.3% THC is seen as manageable by industry. The research will get done but it will either be rear end backwards and inefficient or patented by Pharma.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Colo update; SB155 will pass next week and the governor will sign it. That puts red card money into CDPHE specifically to be used for grants to marijuana researchers with an emphasis on testing therapeutic claims, assumptions and all that. Next step the RFA and how to respond to it!
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:The most powerful I've seen was labeled at 18.X%, and apparently when I did a little research it is indeed a strain known for it's potency. It's a reasonable law, I suppose, but it strikes me as being along the same lines as laws that prohibit beer being over a certain percentage of alcohol. I'm not terribly sure if that works as a function for minimizing the societal harms that alcohol does, but 15% is a reasonable amount of THC. Commercially, I don't think I've seen anything lower than 12, but I also don't have a medical card. That's the other cannabinoids and we still don't know precisely what each one does. Industry in Colorado is not into the concept of drug companies isolating and patenting specific cannabinoids as medicinal since the industry approach has always been "whole plant therapy" (whole bud really). GW is trying this with Charlotte's Web and it's not making industry in Colorado happy at all. It does bypass the legal fallacy created by the feds and supported by the president of UCD though where every study has to be observational or follow DEA standards (meaning you must buy it from them). The hemp laws will let cannabinoids find their way into experimental models since low THC is not "marijuana". Pull out those genes completely and you can go to town on the other molecules! For THC levels the folks that will eventually be handling this are places like http://www.cannlabs.com/ . They're a very professional outfit who apparently just hired another doctoral level scientist doing chemistry. The lab director is a microbiologist with lots of genetic training and she's very good at what she does. I'm hoping that they will do full genome sequencing on a few strains to see just how much diversity we're talking about. That's what you need if you want to set THC limits for smokable pot. Of course you can always do concentrates and concentrates can be concentrated so I don't really know what the legislature is going for when it comes to concentration. I can go buy hash oil from medicine man at essentially whatever concentration I want to pay for!
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
For those of you still interested in legal marijuana in Colorado, here is SB155 that is about to be signed (or has been but hasn't been reported yet); http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2014a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/D9A3D581C1128B5D87257C620055A505?open&file=155shhsfin.pdf and it contains some fairly awesome language; quote:15 (III) CRITERIA FOR SELECTING ENTITIES TO RECEIVE GRANTS AND Taking into account BIAS in the enabling legislation makes me happy to be from Colorado!
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Do you have any sources for that? If its true, that is amazing news. From what I recall, the initial studies showed a whole lot of potential for that class of drugs in a therapeutic environment,until the government clamped down hard on further research. You can't stop an idea from reproducing. [soapbox] That said, as RichieWolk said you can make it really, really hard to pursue that idea in a scientific way. This is essentially what they've done to pot for decades BUT they left the opportunity for research there in the form of NIDA funding. The problem for me though is that the name of the funding organization itself contains the conclusion; Drug Addiction biases people applying for funding to direct their research in a particular direction. That bias is poison and I've always hated it even though good research comes out of NIDA. So now we get to Colorado and the $10 million that they're going to grant to researchers. The administration of UCD and some other places in the state have set the standard for the use of that funding to NIDA/DEA levels meaning that if you want to do the research you have to be licensed by NIDA and then, and this is the annoying part, you have to get the pot you use from NIDA. It's free but it's exactly one strain and that's not what people in Colorado are being exposed to. The state funding however lets researchers do observational studies and the legalization makes standardization of exposure at least possible. We can't pay dispensaries to give specific strains to people that are in the study but we can identify, by name and location, what the participants are smoking and analyze that strain specifically. It's similar to what NIDA is doing elsewhere but doing it this way makes the research applicable to the people using pot which is great. A potential ethical problem with the legislation though is that it was initiated by the medical marijuana industry. On the plus side it was written by a very bright guy at the state who isn't beholden to industry at all. It is, however, spun from the perspective of looking at the therapeutic value of pot because the money came from red card licensing fees. Once again, this could be good or bad but I THINK that it's going to be good. The reason is that the legislation reminds industry that it has exactly no say in what research is done now that the legislation is in place. It also created a foundation/fund that they can contribute to to continue pot based research using industry funds in the future. So ethically I think the state has addressed this quite well but we have to see how it plays out. We want to recruit people who are using pot and we could do that most easily with the help of dispensaries. We'll see what happens when we publish the first negative results though. There's no way that pot is 100% positive and therapeutic and industry is aware of that; we just have to see how they react when we nail one of the negatives. Personally I think that there will be positives and that 10 years from now pot will be thought of almost exactly like alcohol, maybe better. After science takes this crack at pot we MIGHT see other schedule 1 drugs treated a little differently by the feds. I hope that we can get better directives from Justice for doing solid science using abuse-able substances like psychedelics. Personally I'd very much like to see NIDA broken as a stand alone funding agency and its experts distributed to other parts of NIH so that the assumption of addiction isn't there. It would also be nice to require scientific rigor in order to schedule a molecule instead of basing it on DOJ and politics. [/soapbox]
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Modern cigarettes are a highly engineered product designed to administer satisfying dose of pharmacologically active ingredients, including but not limited to nicotine, in a convenient, simple to use package which requires no written instructions and is deliberately marketed to appeal to peoples underlying psychological/social/economic insecurities/problems. Counterpoint; the nicotinic receptor GWAS hit on chromosome 15 for pulmonary function and COPD. Not being argumentative but there is an association between various polymorphisms in that receptor, smoking behavior and smoking related disease suggesting that the tobacco industry adding nicotine to their product was done because it worked. Counter-counterpoint; I can show that adjusting for the effects of smoking behavior (smoking intensity, depth of inhalation and amount of cigarette allowed to burn in the ashtray) remove the protective effect of ethnicity (Hispanic paradox) on COPD related mortality. Unfortunately I don't have Chr15 for that population so I can't show a DAG pulling the association apart. Interesting stuff though, that human behavior!
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
Star Man posted:I'm standing in line right now for a dispensary's hiring fair. This is the second one I've been to and people show up in huge numbers. Good thing I'm badged. I think that the tour i did a while back said that exactly everyone starts as a trimmer (off flowers that are then sent tothe drying racks). Doing solid, precise work there will take you to more interesting jobs down the line. Great news!
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
I've mentioned marijuana research in the past (based on legalization in Colorado). We're trying to work out the best way to collect a thorough daily use profile on people that use pot. What do you guys think about this approach (laid out as a grid so they could tell us about multiple uses per day; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We would like to ask you about how you use marijuana. Please describe how you use marijuana on days when you do; Time of day used Name of product or strain Form of Marijuana (bud, joint, edible, etc.) Method of use (Joint, water pipe, vaporizor, edible, etc.) Amount (a puff, a few puffs, a bowl, a brownie etc) Reason for Use(sleep, nausea, pain, recreation, etc) Dispensary Other comments Has this been your typical use in the past Week Y/N Month Y/N Year Y/N Has you marijuana use changed substantially over the last Week Y/N Increased/Decreased Mont hY/N Increased/Decreased Year Y/N Increased/Decreased Do you typically purchase marijuana; from the same dispensary/a convenient dispensary ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ What do you think? What do you think the problems will be? Do the example terms sound like an old stuffy guy trying to talk like a cool pot smoking person?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Give us a couple years Elotana, we're proposing to collect 1,000 recreational and 1,000 recreational + cigarette users for our study. We talked to Tashkin the other day and we're updating his surveys and also collecting physiological data. Pilot study starts in the summer. All of the bluster in the press about existing studies and new analyses will be cleared up in the near future (if they're unsound).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:expect the legal marijuana industry to fight against other drug legalization, just like the alcohol and medical marijuana industries have against legal marijuana My interactions with the industry have not indicated that. As far as discussions go where they relate to marijuana research and competition with other drugs there is no serious discussion. The marijuana industry in Colorado makes a metric poo poo ton of money and are running at capacity for the time being as I hear things. There is no competition even between dispensaries because the product flows out and the people that buy it are happy though this is for a limited collection of the highest end dispensaries. If you have 10,000 square feet of grow area and its legal and everyone at your business is making money then they appear to be enjoying the money that they're making and are happy making patients happy and happy making recreational users happy. Also you can't produce 10x more in the same space so why create conflicts and limit the industry. Really my interactions have been very positive and rational.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:40 |
|
|
Give us a bit, we'll do some actual research here in Colorado. Our grants are in and being reviewed, we'll hear about which grants were accepted in December and pick up the recruiting in January!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 20:11
|
|