Cannabis News

Banned from Smoking Weed in His Own Home

Published

1 year ago

June 19, 2023

admin

banned from smoking in his own home

This is the story of Tom. Tom suffered from chronic pain for years, enduring countless surgeries and seeking relief in various forms. Finally, he gathered the courage to pursue a medical marijuana license, and it changed his life. He found solace in cannabis, as it alleviated his pain and allowed him to regain a sense of normalcy. For the first time in years, Tom experienced a life without constant suffering.

However, as Tom went about his daily life, embracing the newfound relief provided by medical marijuana, a knock on his door brought his world crashing down. He had been served with a lawsuit, filed by his neighbor who claimed that the years of breathing in Tom’s marijuana smoke had harmed her health. Unbeknownst to him, his own home had become a battleground, pitting his medical needs against his neighbor’s concerns.

This isn’t fiction – this really happened, and should concern every cannabis smoker in the US.

In a recent case in Washington D.C., a court ruled that a man, Thomas Cackett, is forbidden from smoking cannabis inside his home after his neighbor, Josefa Ippolito-Shepherd, sued him. Ippolito-Shepherd argued that the marijuana smoke from Cackett’s residence seeped into her home, causing severe health issues. The court ordered Cackett to refrain from smoking cannabis inside his home, under the risk of being held in contempt of court.

While Cackett testified that he relied on cannabis for pain relief and expressed empathy for his neighbor, the judge ruled in favor of Ippolito-Shepherd, citing the need to protect a neighboring homeowner’s right to the full use and enjoyment of their property. The court decision could still be appealed.

The case raises important questions about the rights of cannabis users and their neighbors, as well as the challenges that arise when conflicting interests clash.

“Experts in secondhand smoke” emphasized the porous nature of shared walls, floors, and ceilings in multi-unit dwellings, stating that cannabis smoke can permeate more extensively than tobacco smoke. They noted that while tobacco smoke may cause headaches and irritations, marijuana smoke can also result in getting high for non-smokers.

Advocates for cannabis legalization, such as Adam Eidinger, see this case as a call to action to establish outdoor public smoking areas, where individuals can consume cannabis without impacting their neighbors. However, critics argue that finding a balance between individual freedoms and the well-being of others is essential.

As with these kinds of stories, I’m going to provide the old “Reginald Perspective” that will highlight some of the absurdities of the claims by these so called “secondhand smoke experts”, and why this case needs to be appealed – and if Tom doesn’t have the money, the cannabis community needs to reach out and pitch in.

Before we continue to discuss the importance of this case – we must first talk about the alleged claims that were made by “secondhand smoke experts” regarding the permeability of cannabis smoke through shared walls, floors, and ceilings in multi-unit dwellings. Additionally, it was suggested that non-smokers exposed to secondhand cannabis smoke can get high. It is essential to critically evaluate these assertions and rely on scientific evidence to provide accurate information on these topics.

And that’s precisely what we’re going to do.

Evaluating Permeability of Cannabis Smoke:

The claim that cannabis smoke can permeate extensively through porous materials such as walls, floors, and ceilings requires careful examination. One cannot simply say things to win court cases, it must be founded in science and reason.

Several scientific studies have investigated the behavior of smoke particles, including those from cannabis, in indoor environments. Notably, the permeability of cannabis smoke is influenced by factors such as particle size, ventilation, and filtration systems.

A study published in the Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association in 2019 examined the transport of particulate matter, including cannabis smoke, in residential buildings. The researchers concluded that while particles from tobacco smoke can travel through shared ventilation systems, the extent of particle migration is limited and does not necessarily result in significant exposure in neighboring units. This study challenges the notion of extensive permeation of cannabis smoke through shared structures.

Furthermore, a study published in the journal Aerosol Science and Technology in 2013 investigated the penetration of smoke particles through materials commonly found in homes, such as gypsum wallboard and plywood. The researchers found that larger particles, such as those present in cannabis smoke, exhibited limited penetration through these materials. These findings suggest that the claim of extensive permeability is not supported by scientific evidence.

It means that those experts are not what they claim because it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out how weak that argument really was.

Addressing the “Getting High” Claim:

Another assertion made was that non-smokers exposed to secondhand cannabis smoke can experience psychoactive effects and get high.

However, the psychoactive effects of cannabis are primarily attributed to delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive compound in the plant. It is important to understand that the concentration of THC in secondhand cannabis smoke is significantly lower than in directly inhaled smoke. Especially if it was “filtered through a wall” as claimed by the experts.

A study published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence in 2010 examined the effects of secondhand cannabis smoke exposure in non-smokers.

The study found that exposure to realistic levels of secondhand cannabis smoke did not result in detectable levels of THC in the blood, suggesting that non-smokers are unlikely to experience psychoactive effects or get high from secondhand exposure. These findings contradict the claim that non-smokers can get high from secondhand cannabis smoke.

However, it’s important to note that people can get high from smoking a non-psychoactive material when they are deceived into believing that it is a psychoactive material. In other words, they can be “placebo-ed” into thinking they are high.

Now, I’m not claiming that the plaintiff in the afore mentioned case was not affected by the odor of her neighbor, but it’s hard to believe that she got the “dizziness” she claims she got from the plant. Rather, it seems like psychosomatic suggestion as a result of decades of programming by her pals “The US Government”.

To further explore why the plaintiff is self-suggesting her “health side effects” we’ll compare the smoke density and material density of buildings.

Comparing Smoke Density and Material Density:

To provide a better understanding of the physical properties involved, it is important to compare the density of cannabis smoke with that of typical building materials.

Cannabis smoke consists of tiny particles suspended in the air, while walls, floors, and ceilings are composed of dense materials. The density difference between smoke particles and building materials impedes the ability of smoke to permeate through solid surfaces significantly.

Additionally, the presence of smoke filtration systems, such as HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning) systems equipped with appropriate filters, can further minimize the movement of smoke particles between different units. These systems effectively capture and remove airborne particles, reducing the potential for smoke migration.

We don’t know for sure if the defendant in the case had any of these elements on, however, this wasn’t even considered in the case. The mere fact that the logic of these alleged experts weren’t challenged makes me think that Tom nor his lawyers expected a court to rule against banning someone from smoking in their own home as this opens up a whole bag of constitutional issues.

The Possible implications of this ruling

Banning someone from smoking cannabis in their own home can have significant implications for cannabis consumers and potentially encroach upon their constitutional rights.

The case described in the article, where a court ordered a D.C. resident to cease smoking cannabis inside his home due to a neighbor’s complaint, raises concerns regarding individual privacy, personal autonomy, and the broader implications for cannabis legalization.

The right to privacy is a fundamental aspect of individual liberty protected by the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has recognized this right as encompassing personal choices made within the confines of one’s home. By prohibiting individuals from consuming cannabis in their private residences, a precedent is set that potentially infringes upon this constitutional protection.

It sets a worrisome precedent where personal preferences and choices are subjected to the scrutiny and control of neighbors and the legal system.

Moreover, such bans can undermine the progress made in cannabis legalization efforts.

As more states and jurisdictions move towards decriminalization and legalization, it is essential to establish frameworks that respect individual rights and the autonomy of consumers. Imposing restrictions on the use of cannabis within private homes can undermine the intent and purpose of these laws, limiting the ability of individuals to fully exercise their rights within the confines of their own property.

Additionally, singling out cannabis consumers for restrictions not imposed on individuals who engage in legal activities raises questions about equity and fairness.

It creates a disproportionate burden on individuals who rely on cannabis for medical purposes or as a legal recreational substance. This selective targeting of cannabis users potentially violates principles of equal protection under the law, treating them differently from individuals engaged in other lawful activities within their homes. If there’s no ban on smoking tobacco, then this is singling out a specific group of people under the law…

To ensure a fair and balanced approach, regulations regarding cannabis consumption should be carefully crafted, respecting the rights of individuals while addressing valid concerns related to public health and nuisance. Striking a balance between individual rights and community interests is crucial in navigating the complexities of cannabis legalization and preventing the erosion of constitutional rights.

This is why this is an important story for cannabis consumers and I urge any lawyers or groups to rally together and fight this in the courts. We need to etch out our space within the community and while it might be inconvenient for some that people have a right to consume on their own homes/properties – then so be it.

The fact of the matter is that we’re talking about fundamental rights here…so let’s not let non-consumers shape the law according to their wills.

Cannabis News

Is Kratom Addictive? Understanding Dependence, Risks, and Safe Usage

Published

8 hours ago

November 12, 2024

admin

is kratom addictive

Is kratom addictive? Discover the potential for dependence on Kratom, the risks involved with its use, and how to approach its consumption responsibly.

From 2011 to 2017, over 1,800 calls to poison centers involved kratom in the U.S. This significant number highlights the concern regarding kratom addiction.

However, without Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight, and due to various consumption methods like teas and capsules, there are significant health risks. Safe use of kratom is now in question due to these issues.

Research debates how dependence develops, outlining signs like loss of control and withdrawal symptoms. These signs are seen in regular kratom users. Ironically, some people switch from drugs like heroin to kratom, looking for a legal alternative.

Understanding Kratom: Origins and Prevalence

Kratom comes from the Mitragyna speciosa tree in Southeast Asia. It can act like a stimulant or like opioids, based on how much you take. People use it in different ways, for a small energy boost or stronger effects at higher doses.

The legal status of kratom in the U.S. is complicated and changing. It’s a hot topic because some worry about its misuse. It’s still legal in several states. This shows how different places handle drug rules. The National Institute on Drug Abuse is looking into its medical benefits. But, the FDA hasn’t approved it for medical use yet. The DEA calls it a “drug of concern,” which means policies might change.

From 2011 to 2017, poison control centers in the U.S. got over 1,800 reports about kratom. This shows it’s widely used and might pose health risks.

Kratom’s main ingredients bind to opioid receptors very strongly, stronger than morphine even. This fact is key to understanding its effects.

As more people use kratom, more are reporting serious health problems. These include liver and heart issues, and tough withdrawal symptoms, particularly in those already sick.

The statistics show mounting worries about kratom in the U.S. As its use grows, it’s becoming more important to health policies and laws. What happens next will depend on further research and legal decisions.

Is Kratom Addictive: Investigating the Substance’s Nature

The question of kratom’s addictiveness focuses on how it affects brain receptors and its long-term health implications. The ongoing debate highlights concerns about dependence and the risk of addiction. Scientists are closely looking at these issues.

How Kratom Works in the Brain

Kratom’s main alkaloids, mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, bind to the brain’s opioid receptors, similar to painkillers and narcotics. This connection suggests a potential risk of dependence. These alkaloids are key to kratom’s pain relief but also point to possible addiction concerns, especially with frequent, high-dose usage.

Patterns and Consequences of Long-term Use

Using kratom often, especially in large doses, can increase the risk of dependence and intense withdrawal symptoms, similar to opioid withdrawal.

Although some use it for pain or to improve mood, long-term kratom users might see serious health problems, like liver damage and mental health issues.

Withdrawal symptoms, including irritability, nausea, and sleep problems, show kratom’s impact on one’s physical and mental health.

Assessment of Addiction Risks

Studies indicate a significant risk of addiction to kratom, especially with high doses or frequent use. Dependence develops as the body gets used to kratom, leading to tolerance and a need for more to feel its effects. Withdrawal symptoms emphasize this risk, as highlighted by health experts.

Physiological Effects: Kratom’s Impact on the Body

There is a lot of debate about the safety and use of kratom. This herbal extract comes from the Mitragyna speciosa plant. It has drawn attention for its possible harmful effects on the body. The FDA has issued many warnings about kratom, raising safety concerns.

Kratom Adverse Effects: Kratom users have reported side effects like nausea, vomiting, and confusion. More serious issues include high blood pressure and liver damage. These problems highlight the risks of using kratom.

Herbal Extract Safety: Some kratom products contain heavy metals and pathogens. These can cause severe health issues, including death. This shows the importance of safety in herbal products.

FDA Warnings and Regulations: The FDA has linked kratom to over 35 deaths and warns against using it. They point out the lack of medical uses and the risk of addiction.

Physiological Impact: Kratom’s effects depend on the dose and the user’s body. Yet, it can lead to dangerous outcomes like liver damage and seizures.

Safety Concerns from Authorities: Federal agencies like the DEA are worried about kratom’s safety. Although not a controlled substance, monitoring suggests users should be careful.

Kratom might offer temporary relief for some ailments, but it comes with significant risks. The FDA’s warnings should make people think twice. If considering kratom, it’s crucial to talk to a doctor first. Experts stress the need for safety and caution with herbal extracts.

Conclusion

Kratom’s role in health and regulation is complex, with views and research findings widely varied. Some people use kratom for its claimed health benefits, but it’s a hot topic. Experts advise caution and suggest consulting a doctor before using kratom due to the unclear effects.

Clinical studies using scores like SOWS and COWS haven’t confirmed withdrawal symptoms from kratom. This adds to the debate, especially when some users report withdrawal. This makes kratom a controversial subject among different findings and user experiences.

When it comes to treating opioid addiction, kratom can be both helpful and harmful. Some have used it successfully to fight addiction. Yet, some states have banned it. This highlights the need for regulations and consistent product quality. It also raises questions about kratom’s legal status due to mixed actions by authorities.

The situation shows how complex kratom is in the realm of substance use and law. Without clear evidence supporting either its benefits or risks, it poses a challenge. More research is needed to guide regulations and health advice. For now, anyone thinking of using kratom should be careful, seek medical advice, and keep up with laws and health guidelines.

WHAT IS KRATOM ANYWAY? READ ON…

WHAT IS KRATOM AND WHY ARE YOU HEARING ABOUT IT NOW?

Source link

Cannabis News

New Rule, December 5: Oregon Cannabis Retailers, Processors and Labor Peace Agreements

Published

9 hours ago

November 12, 2024

admin

Oregon’s Measure 119 passed last week, as expected. This means that as of December 5^th, every OLCC licensed retailer, processor, researcher and testing lab must secure a labor peace agreement before OLCC will approve a new or renewal license application. The labor peace agreement must be with a “bona fide labor organization.”

I previewed M119 back in September, explaining:

Compulsory peace agreements aren’t anything new in cannabis, although it would be something different here in Oregon. California, for example, requires labor peace agreements for many of its cannabis licensees, and has for many years. We had clients struggle with the concept initially, and we saw some fumbled rollouts, but people eventually adjusted.

Measure 119 further provides that retailers and processors would be required to remain neutral, under the peace agreements, when labor organizations communicate with employees about collective bargaining rights “with any licensure or renewal application.”

M119 may be legally problematic

I’m not a First Amendment lawyer, but it’s not clear to me that an Oregon business can be constrained from speaking with employees– regardless of what M119 provides. Oregon’s speech protections are extremely broad, which is why we have a naked bike ride, tons of strip clubs and no campaign finance restrictions.

I’m also not a labor lawyer, but I’m told M119 could hit a snag on the National Labor Relations Act.

I’ve run these concepts by an Oregon First Amendment lawyer and a couple of labor lawyers, and all confirmed to me that M119 has real exposure. I found that feedback interesting, because M119 sponsors would have understood this when they set out signature gathering. Back in September, I wrote:

The United Food and Commercial Workers Local 555 spent a good deal of money to get Measure 119 on the ballot, rounding up some 163,000 signatures when only 117,173 were required. This follows on a stymied effort to get House Bill 3183 passed last year, which would have accomplished the same thing legislatively.

HB 3183 failed after a couple of advisory letters from the State of Oregon, Legislative Counsel Committee (see here and here). Those letters discussed preemption exposure for what is now M119 under the National Labor Relations Act, The Taft Hartley Act, and other federal laws. Oregon Business and Industry, the largest business group in the state, also submitted opposing testimony, highlighting legal exposure.

As to the First Amendment issues, anyone watching this is advised to follow litigation recently brought by Ctrl Alt Destroy, Inc., on a similar requirement in California.

So let’s see how that goes, and let’s see if anyone in the Oregon cannabis space wants to make a run at litigating M119. For now, credit to UFCW Local 555, I guess, for not giving up and for getting this thing on the ballot. And for having some fun by slipping a Rickroll into the voter pamphlet. I’m sure that won a few people over.

The OLCC process

I don’t have any information yet on what OLCC is going to do ahead of the December 5^th deadline. It’s worth noting that, in addition to California, other recreational cannabis states including New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Delaware all have similar requirements. Most likely, OLCC will put out an FAQ page very soon that looks something like this and licensees will need to upload something or other to CAMP with respect to any post-December 5^thapplication or renewal.

As far as OLCC licensees negotiating these agreements, the best approach would be to speak with experienced labor counsel. Labor law is highly specialized, and negotiating a labor peace agreement with any outfit claiming to be a “bona fide labor organization” is not a typical exercise.

For now, this is just one more thing for licensed cannabis businesses to comply with. Please reach out to us if you have any questions or need a referral.

Source link

Cannabis News

The CBD Dog Treat Guide

Published

10 hours ago

November 12, 2024

admin

CBD dog treats good or bad

As the popularity of CBD (cannabidiol) continues to rise, many pet owners are exploring its potential benefits for their furry companions. CBD is derived from the hemp plant and is known for its therapeutic properties, which may help alleviate anxiety, pain, inflammation, and other health issues in dogs. However, when considering CBD treats for your dog, it’s crucial to understand the ingredients that go into these products. This article will delve into the essential ingredients to look for in CBD treats, their benefits, potential risks, and how to choose the right product for your canine friend.

Understanding CBD and Its Benefits for Dogs

Before we dive into the ingredients, it’s important to understand what CBD is and how it can benefit dogs. CBD is a non-psychoactive compound found in cannabis plants. Unlike THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), which can produce a “high,” CBD does not have intoxicating effects. Instead, it interacts with the endocannabinoid system (ECS) in both humans and animals, which plays a crucial role in regulating various physiological processes.

Potential Benefits of CBD for Dogs

Anxiety Relief: Many dogs experience anxiety due to various factors such as loud noises, separation from their owners, or changes in their environment. CBD may help reduce anxiety levels by promoting a sense of calm.

Choosing the Right CBD Treats

When selecting CBD treats for your dog, it’s essential to look beyond just the CBD content. The overall quality of the treat is equally important. Here are some key ingredients you should be aware of:

1. High-Quality CBD Oil

The foundation of any good CBD treat is the quality of the CBD oil used. Look for treats that contain:

Full-Spectrum or Broad-Spectrum CBD: Full-spectrum products contain all cannabinoids found in the hemp plant, including trace amounts of THC (below 0.3% as per legal standards). Broad-spectrum products contain multiple cannabinoids but no THC. Both types can provide an “entourage effect,” enhancing the therapeutic benefits.

2. Natural Ingredients

Just like human food, the ingredients in your dog’s treats matter significantly. Look for treats made with natural ingredients rather than artificial additives or preservatives. Here are some beneficial components:

Whole grains like oat flour or brown rice flour provide essential nutrients and fiber that support digestive health. They are also a good source of energy for active dogs.

Healthy fats are vital for maintaining your dog’s coat and skin health. Ingredients like coconut oil or peanut butter not only enhance flavor but also provide beneficial fatty acids that support overall well-being.

Incorporating fruits and vegetables into your dog’s treats can boost their nutritional value:

To make treats more appealing without resorting to artificial flavors, look for natural flavorings like chicken broth or carob (a chocolate substitute safe for dogs). These ingredients can enhance taste while keeping the treat healthy.

3. Functional Ingredients

Some treats may include additional functional ingredients designed to address specific health concerns:

These compounds are often included in joint support treats to help maintain joint health and mobility, especially in older dogs or those with arthritis.

Probiotics can promote gut health by supporting a healthy balance of bacteria in your dog’s digestive system.

Certain herbs like chamomile or ginger may offer calming effects or aid digestion. Always ensure these herbs are safe for canine consumption before choosing treats containing them.

Ingredients to Avoid

While there are many beneficial ingredients to seek out, it’s equally important to know which ones to avoid:

1. Artificial Additives

Many commercial pet treats contain artificial colors, flavors, and preservatives that can be harmful to your dog’s health. These additives may lead to allergic reactions or other health issues over time.

2. High Sugar Content

Just like humans, dogs do not need excessive sugar in their diets. Treats high in sugar can lead to obesity and dental problems.

3. Low-Quality Fillers

Avoid treats with low-quality fillers such as corn syrup or by-products that do not provide any nutritional value.

4. THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol)

Always ensure that any CBD product you choose contains less than 0.3% THC to avoid any psychoactive effects on your dog.

How to Introduce CBD Treats Safely

When introducing any new treat into your dog’s diet—especially one containing CBD—it’s essential to do so gradually:

Start Small: Begin with a small amount of the treat to see how your dog reacts.

Monitor Your Dog: Observe your dog for any adverse reactions such as changes in behavior or gastrointestinal upset.

Adjust Dosage as Needed: Depending on your dog’s size and needs, you may need to adjust the dosage over time.

Consult Your Veterinarian: Before starting any new supplement regimen, including CBD treats, consult with your veterinarian—especially if your dog has existing health conditions or is taking other medications.

Conclusion

CBD treats can be a beneficial addition to your dog’s diet when chosen carefully with attention to ingredient quality and safety. By understanding what goes into these treats—such as high-quality CBD oil, natural ingredients, functional additives—and knowing what to avoid, you can make informed decisions that support your dog’s health and well-being.

Always prioritize transparency from manufacturers regarding ingredient sourcing and product testing; this will ensure you’re providing your furry friend with safe and effective options tailored to their needs. With proper research and guidance from a veterinarian, you can confidently explore the potential benefits of CBD treats for your beloved pet while ensuring they enjoy a tasty snack that’s good for them too!