cannabis and full-time RV'ing?

[WheelEstate USA]

Jim...Several folks I know vape oil and I don't pick up any smell. Maybe your sniffer is better than mine.

 

[jimindenver]

Jim...Several folks I know vape oil and I don't pick up any smell. Maybe your sniffer is better than mine.

I am ultra sensitive but I don't need that for some of the stuff. I look forward to the scentless oils becoming more popular.

A better sniffer is not the enhanced sense that I would choose in life as most of it stinks.

 

[Queen]

I am ultra sensitive but I don't need that for some of the stuff. I look forward to the scentless oils becoming more popular.

A better sniffer is not the enhanced sense that I would choose in life as most of it stinks.

Right there with you, super sensitive sense of smell, not much out there in the civilized world that smells good though.  Put me in a high elevation pine forest though and it. is. awesome!

 

[Hippiechk]

Right there with you, super sensitive sense of smell, not much out there in the civilized world that smells good though.  Put me in a high elevation pine forest though and it. is. awesome!

I live out away from most humanity by choice...this is one reason I choose it.

From vapes I have noticed the slightest hint of pot like smell just in the actual cloud of vapor, I have not picked up on it clinging but then I don't know a lot who ONLY vape. I'd be more likely to suspect that 'occasional joint or bowl' most vapers go for is that clinging residual.

I think the vape for medicinal maintenance is great but it's not usually a very good get you high toy if you are a regular smoker.

Sent from my Z850 using Tapatalk

 

[SoulRaven]

You might just be mistaken.

I'm amazed 
1. I'm wrong!  What? 
2. It just seems so "ungovernment-like"  to share revenue.   I'm cynical enough to believe 
    that the $$$ is most important to a bureaucrat's heart. 

Thanks for the clarification!

 

[jimindenver]

I have heard vapes are the least effective way to partake. The original pens were just disposable e-ciggys that were not rechargeable so if the battery ran out half way through the cartridge, you were sol.

I feel the same way about pot as I do cigarettes. It's a personal choice and no ones business as long as you don't inflict the negative aspects on others.

 

[GotSmart]

I'm amazed 
1. I'm wrong!  What? 
2. It just seems so "ungovernment-like"  to share revenue.   I'm cynical enough to believe 
    that the $$$ is most important to a bureaucrat's heart. 

Thanks for the clarification!

No No No!!  You were not wrong, just mistaken!  

Perhaps misunderstood?    

 

[Richard]

I have heard vapes are the least effective way to partake.

It can be a pretty controversial topic among those who have a psychological commitment ('anchor') to one method of use over the other(s). Those who smoke actually enjoy the experience/ritual of smoking. The problem with smoking is mostly associated with health concerns: Combustion by-products in the lungs are bad, no matter what it is that's being smoked. For that reason, some have chosen the vaporizer path.

It's worth noting that pens, which use oil/concentrate, have become the default object of reference when 'vaping' is mentioned, but, there's another category of vaporizers that pre-date pens/e-cigs. These are chamber based (think 'bowl') and they use ground plant material. There's actually a precise science behind how fine to grind, and what temperature range best evaporates the oils without combustion or chemical alteration.

This is a good starting point to understand the science if anyone's interested: http://www.weedist.com/2012/07/tailoring-your-high-intro-to-temperature-control-with-a-vaporizer/

 

[Gunny]

After I posted my question here last week I had an appointment with my Mental Health Adviser at the VA. She is actually a Nurse Practitioner who the actual MD types come to for advice. 

This woman has been my lifesaver at the VA. During my long and contentious appeal of the VA's decision on my % of disability, she stood beside me when all the other supposed Caretakers (Primary Care in particular) were bailing like rats deserting a sinking ship.

Anyway, I asked her about trying grass for some relief. She told me the VA was considering a test of it, but as long as it is an illegal drug as far as the Feds think, she did not see it happening.  She did not mention the use that 66788 spoke of, maybe just not aware of it. She did say that with the various strains that other than the pain there is the side benefit of lessening my anxiety which usually manifests itself in my temper. 

While I am still not willing to risk the loss of benefits, maybe there is a chance, albeit small, that the DEA will take pot out of the major drug list. 

The majority of the members who posted about it on Military.com are all wary. The service branches are Discharging men and women for a trace of pot and the VA would be about the same. I have had an adversarial relationship with the VA for a number of years and after they settled a lawsuit with me it has intensified.

This is a very interesting and informative thread.

To All....Be safe

 

[RVTravel]

https://www.rt.com/usa/316148-marijuana-related-deaths-injuries-study/

 

[jimindenver]

We all knew that there would be a impact so no shock. I would imagine a similar study after prohibition would have resulted in like results.

 

[Richard]

https://www.rt.com/usa/316148-marijuana-related-deaths-injuries-study/

There's an awful lot in that story that, at best, is misleading.

Generally speaking "marijuana-related" implies a correlation. And correlation isn't necessarily causation. So... those data don't actually tell us anything useful. It's akin to propaganda (is anyone surprised by that?).

To see how correlation may be misused to imply causation, a Harvard law student named Tyler Vigen has put together a website -- aptly named Spurious Correlations -- to see how correlations are often portrayed as causative when, in fact, they're absolutely not.

Another red flag in that story on RT is that "The study was conducted by a federal government program." It's widely known that Marijuana doesn't belong in the category of Federal Schedule I classification. Schedule I drugs, according to the DEA's web page, are:

Schedule I

Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are:

heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote

-from http://www.dea.gov/druginfo/ds.shtml

The Federal government's refusal/reluctance to remove marijuana from it's Schedule I classification stands opposed to science. (In fact, the same is true for psychedelics such as LSD, peyote, DMT, etc. And, most recently, limited trials with severe PTSD sufferers have been approved and are showing clinically significant improvements via the administration of ecstasy meth (MDMA) just once a week in a clinical setting).

Marijuana does have currently accepted medical uses according to a wide body of international science. In fact, the last time I read about this particular point, the Federal government had obtained at least 1 patent for marijuana for medical use. (See here and here for more information about that). Can you see the irony of the government simultaneously refusing to remove marijuana from Schedule I ("no currently accepted medical use") even as it obtains a patent for medical use?

Please note that I'm not suggesting that the data are false. What I'm saying is that they're correlative rather than causative, and that they come from a blatantly biased source. These are important considerations when we're trying to decide how best to interpret the information that's been presented in that story.

 

[Gunny]

Richard wrote

"
The Federal government's refusal/reluctance to remove marijuana from it's Schedule I classification stands opposed to science. (In fact, the same is true for psychedelics such as LSD, peyote, DMT, etc. And, most recently, limited trials with severe PTSD sufferers have been approved and are showing clinically significant improvements via the administration of ecstasy meth (MDMA) just once a week in a clinical setting)."

I will add just a bit about PTSD and drugs, if I may. I was given a 70% Disability rating for PTSD and 60% for GSW's , does this allow me to draw 130% Disability pay? Of course not, it just allows my entire retirement to be tax-free. The drugs I am given for PTSD are addicting, Xanax, Ambien, Tamazapan,Prozac and many others I have tried. I know I am slightly addicted to Xanax, I have run out a couple of times and felt, for lack of a better word, very anxious.


After my regimen for PTSD , I have my bone on bone hip issues and a Degenerative Disc Disease that for the most part is not so bad but once or twice a month I bend, twist or do something and Holy Hell, I am in the fetal position trying to low crawl to my floor safe and get the hard drugs. All perfectly legal, prescribed by my Primary Care who will ask ME what I think works. I could get morphine if I asked but not a joint. Makes sense to me. I don't take the Oxy or anything strong very often, I actually cannot see how someone would like to feel the way those drugs make me feel.

This is just a meaningless rant, no one in authority gives a rat's ass and it won't change in my lifetime.

Rant over.. Be safe.

 

[GotSmart]

There's an awful lot in that story that, at best, is misleading.

Generally speaking "marijuana-related" implies a correlation. And correlation isn't necessarily causation. So... those data don't actually tell us anything useful. It's akin to propaganda (is anyone surprised by that?).

To see how correlation may be misused to imply causation, a Harvard law student named Tyler Vigen has put together a website -- aptly named Spurious Correlations -- to see how correlations are often portrayed as causative when, in fact, they're absolutely not.

Another red flag in that story on RT is that "The study was conducted by a federal government program." It's widely known that Marijuana doesn't belong in the category of Federal Schedule I classification. Schedule I drugs, according to the DEA's web page, are:



The Federal government's refusal/reluctance to remove marijuana from it's Schedule I classification stands opposed to science. (In fact, the same is true for psychedelics such as LSD, peyote, DMT, etc. And, most recently, limited trials with severe PTSD sufferers have been approved and are showing clinically significant improvements via the administration of ecstasy meth (MDMA) just once a week in a clinical setting).

Marijuana does have currently accepted medical uses according to a wide body of international science. In fact, the last time I read about this particular point, the Federal government had obtained at least 1 patent for marijuana for medical use. (See here and here for more information about that). Can you see the irony of the government simultaneously refusing to remove marijuana from Schedule I ("no currently accepted medical use") even as it obtains a patent for medical use?

Please note that I'm not suggesting that the data are false. What I'm saying is that they're correlative rather than causative, and that they come from a blatantly biased source. These are important considerations when we're trying to decide how best to interpret the information that's been presented in that story.

Ever read the reports on DHMO? 

 

[jimindenver]

The total legalization of pot would mean the loss of monies to a huge amount of peoples. The only way it will happen is if it is shown that more can be collected by legalizing it than by enforcing the laws against it.

That's big money. I saw a special on one state that a few joints gets you big time. The state pays the parish a daily fee to house the constant stream of inmates so they have no intention of legalizing it. Even reducing the sentences is money out of their pockets. Now think of the changes it would prompt in the DEA, there would be lay offs.

That said the taxes collected and economic boon for Colorado is being taken notice of. They charge 35% here on stupid high prices and if they said 50%, oh well. It would still sell.

Like Amsterdam it has created a tourism industry including tours, hotels, packages and people come from all over the world.

I bet it is also noted that like other culture changing legalization, the world didn't end. Come to think of it, now that it has been a few years and the shine has worn off, it's not even such a big deal any more.

The other shoe is hemp is also being developed industrially and while pot is big money, hemp is going blow it away.

 

[Richard]

This is just a meaningless rant, no one in authority gives a rat's ass and it won't change in my lifetime. Rant over.. Be safe.

Nah, not a meaningless rant at all, Gunny. Hey, if you haven't seen these, they may offer you some encouragement/hope that change may unfold in your lifetime after all. I find them very encouraging:


Scientists are testing MDMA as a PTSD treatment for veterans  (The Verge; Apr. 2015).

From Club To Clinic: How MDMA Could Help Some Cope With Trauma  (NPR; Sep. 2015).

MDMA Psychotherapy Could Be Legal In Just Five Years; FDA approval of the treatment for PTSD is on the horizon  (Huffington Post; Oct. 2015).

 

[Richard]

Ever read the reports on DHMO? 

I haven't. What should I be looking for?

EDIT: Nevermind... I don't know whether to LOL or /cry

 

[Richard]

The total legalization of pot would mean the loss of monies to a huge amount of peoples. The only way it will happen is if it is shown that more can be collected by legalizing it than by enforcing the laws against it. That's big money.
...
The other shoe is hemp is also being developed industrially and while pot is big money, hemp is going blow it away.

Agreed. The regulation is more a political/economic matter than scientific. Which is one reason why the status quo doesn't appeal to me. Corruption is corruption, no matter what party or candidate may be in office at any given time

I'd love to see hemp get more industrial use overall. It just makes so much sense across the board. Well, unless we're talking about politicians and industry captains who perhaps are unwilling to lose revenue to material over which they have no patent control.

 

[GotSmart]

I haven't. What should I be looking for?

http://dhmo.org/

How the truth can be manipulated.

 

[Richard]

http://dhmo.org/

How the truth can be manipulated.

Just... sad