Cannabis News
The Church vs. Cannabis Legalization
Navigating the complex interplay of dogma, morality, and societal evolution is no small feat, especially when confronting the deeply entrenched beliefs of institutions like the Church. The recent moralistic opposition to cannabis legalization by Archbishop Aquila is a testament to the persistent challenge of dispelling dogmas that have long outlived their relevance. Dogma, by its very nature, discourages questioning and promotes a static view of morality, often running counter to the dynamic nature of human societies and cultures.
The Church, historically, has not just been a religious institution but also a cultural and moral compass, deeply intertwined with the state’s governance despite the ostensible separation of church and state. This role has often seen the Church act as a spiritual enforcer of societal norms, aligning closely with government policies. The issue at hand, however, is not just about the alignment of the Church with governmental policies, but the rigidity with which it clings to outdated ideas in the face of an evolving society.
We are witnessing a significant shift in cultural and societal norms, a transition from the age-old Piscean values to an era where individual empowerment and enlightenment take precedence — an age where ‘Man becomes God.’ This paradigm shift challenges the traditional authority of institutions like the Church, forcing them to confront and adapt to new societal realities or risk becoming obsolete.
Archbishop Aquila’s arguments against cannabis legalization are a clear example of the struggle faced by religious institutions in this new era. The archbishop’s views reflect a refusal to acknowledge the changing perceptions and understanding of cannabis, both medically and recreationally. It is this reluctance to evolve and reconsider long-held beliefs in light of new evidence and societal changes that Reginald seeks to challenge.
In this article, we will scrutinize Archbishop Aquila’s claims, breaking down each argument with a blend of factual information, contemporary societal understanding, and a touch of irreverent humor. The goal is not merely to counter the archbishop’s viewpoints but to highlight the broader issue of how dogmatic beliefs can hinder societal progress and the acceptance of new ideas.
As we embark on this analytical journey, it’s essential to remember that questioning and challenging dogma is not just about winning an argument. It’s about fostering a society that values critical thinking, embraces change, and respects individual choice. It’s about creating a world where dogma does not stifle innovation and progress but coexists with an ever-evolving understanding of what it means to be human.
The claim made by Archbishop Aquila, suggesting that the “typical marijuana user consumes 40 mg of THC at a time,” not only lacks empirical evidence but also illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of cannabis consumption habits and its effects. This assertion, likening a cannabis session to consuming “8 to 16 drinks in one sitting,” is not just exaggerated but misleadingly compares the effects of cannabis to that of alcohol, a substance with entirely different pharmacodynamics and societal impacts.
To contextualize the archbishop’s claim, it’s crucial to understand the typical THC content in cannabis products. The average cannabis flower contains about 10-15% THC. Even in the case of concentrates, which have a higher THC percentage, the actual amount of THC consumed per session doesn’t come close to 40 mg. Most consumers, based on usage patterns and product availability, consume between 7-14 grams of cannabis per week. This consumption level is far more akin to enjoying 1-2 beers than the exaggerated equivalence of 8-16 alcoholic drinks.
Moreover, Archbishop Aquila’s comparison neglects the differences in the half-life and impact on motor skills between cannabis and alcohol. While alcohol is known for its significant impairment of motor skills and judgment, leading to potentially dangerous situations, cannabis does not produce such extreme effects. The comparison, therefore, is not only inaccurate but irresponsibly conflates two vastly different substances.
This misunderstanding or misrepresentation by Archbishop Aquila is emblematic of a broader issue: the perpetuation of mistruths and stigma surrounding cannabis. Such claims, especially when coming from influential figures, contribute to the ongoing misinformation and prejudice against cannabis users. It is essential for public discourse to be grounded in facts and empirical data, rather than perpetuating outdated and disproven stereotypes.
For a religious leader like Archbishop Aquila, who holds a position of trust and influence, it is disappointing to see such a lack of insight and accuracy in discussing cannabis use. It is reminiscent of another biblical figure known for spreading falsehoods.
The sweeping claim by Archbishop Aquila that “Marijuana is shown to do great harm to users” is another example of a broad generalization that fails to recognize the complexity and nuances of cannabis use. It is a reductionist approach that unjustly demonizes cannabis by ignoring the diversity of user experiences and the multitude of factors that contribute to substance-related harm.
Empirical evidence suggests that while excess consumption of anything, including cannabis, can have detrimental effects, the assertion that all users are uniformly affected is inaccurate. In reality, the majority of cannabis users – approximately 9 out of 10 – can maintain a healthy relationship with the substance. For many, cannabis serves not as a harmful vice but as a source of relief and comfort, especially for medical purposes. These users navigate their cannabis use responsibly, without it leading to significant adverse effects in their lives.
It is also crucial to acknowledge that there is a subset of individuals in every demographic who may be more susceptible to addiction and substance misuse. This susceptibility, however, is not unique to cannabis and is a complex interplay of genetic, environmental, and psychological factors. Blaming cannabis exclusively for addiction ignores this complexity and the individualized nature of substance abuse disorders.
Archbishop Aquila’s stance not only misrepresents the reality of cannabis use but also overlooks the significant therapeutic benefits it offers. Numerous studies and patient testimonies have highlighted the effectiveness of cannabis in managing chronic pain, reducing the symptoms of PTSD, and providing relief in various other medical conditions. To categorically dismiss these benefits and label cannabis as universally harmful is to deny comfort and potential healing to those in need.
Moreover, Aquila’s stance reflects a broader issue of denying individuals the autonomy to make informed decisions about their own bodies. Prohibiting cannabis use based on exaggerated and generalized claims is a form of overreach that infringes upon personal freedom. Only a tyrannical approach would seek to control such personal choices without considering the diverse experiences and needs of individuals.
While it’s necessary to recognize the potential risks associated with cannabis use, it is equally important to maintain a balanced perspective. Generalized statements about cannabis causing universal harm are not only empirically false but also harmful in their own right, as they perpetuate misconceptions and prevent people from accessing a substance that could significantly improve their quality of life.
Archbishop Aquila’s claim that legal marijuana is costly to everyone, except for the government which benefits from tax revenues, is another assertion that fails to hold up under scrutiny. The often-cited figure that regulation costs $4.50 for every $1 generated in marijuana taxes is a statistic propagated by prohibition groups such as SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana) and does not accurately represent the economic impact of legalized cannabis.
First and foremost, it’s crucial to debunk the misleading cost-benefit ratio. The claim ignores the broader economic contributions of the legal cannabis industry. This industry not only generates substantial tax revenue but also creates numerous jobs, contributes to health insurance schemes, and stimulates economic activity in related sectors. Legal cannabis businesses are significant contributors to the economy, paying salaries, purchasing services, and contributing to the community in various ways.
Moreover, the argument overlooks several critical benefits of legalizing cannabis:
-
Reduced Dependency on Pharmaceuticals: Legal cannabis provides an alternative to pharmaceutical drugs, particularly in the management of pain and mental health conditions. This shift can lead to a decrease in pharmaceutical drug dependency, which is often more costly and potentially harmful.
-
Opioid Crisis Mitigation: Numerous studies have shown that in areas with legal access to cannabis, there has been a reduction in opioid addiction and related deaths. This aspect alone represents a significant saving in both economic terms and human lives.
-
Traffic Safety: Contrary to common misconceptions, there hasn’t been a conclusive increase in traffic fatalities attributable to cannabis legalization. The relationship between cannabis use and driving impairment is complex and different from that of alcohol.
-
Revenue Generation: The legal cannabis industry does generate significant revenue. Unlike the costly war on drugs, which is a drain on public resources with little to no return, the cannabis industry contributes positively to state and local budgets.
-
Respect for Individual Autonomy: Legalization respects the individual’s right to make choices about their consumption, provided it doesn’t harm others. This principle is foundational to a free society and cannot be discounted.
Archbishop Aquila’s claim about the economic costs of legal cannabis fails to consider the full spectrum of economic and social benefits associated with legalization. By focusing only on regulation costs and ignoring the broader positive impacts, the claim presents a skewed and incomplete picture of the reality of legal cannabis.
Archbishop Aquila’s assertion that the legalization of marijuana in states like Colorado and California has led to a surge in the illegal drug trade misinterprets the situation. His reliance on selective news stories to paint a narrative of failure overlooks the nuances of the issue, primarily how over-taxation and stringent regulations have inadvertently fueled the black market.
The stories cited from the Los Angeles Times do not inherently point to the failure of cannabis legalization. Instead, they highlight the struggles of the legal cannabis market in grappling with high taxes and complex regulations. This economic environment has inadvertently made illegal operations more viable for some growers and sellers. High taxes and stringent regulatory requirements can drive up the cost of legal cannabis, making it less competitive compared to its illegal counterpart. This situation, however, is not an indictment of legalization itself, but rather of how it has been implemented.
In a market where legal cannabis is heavily taxed and regulated, it’s unsurprising that some growers and sellers might choose to operate outside the legal framework to remain competitive. This phenomenon is a result of market dynamics rather than an inherent flaw in the concept of legalization. Under prohibition, the illegal market had no competition and could set prices without concern for legal alternatives. Now, with legalization, there’s a legitimate competitive market that can influence prices and availability.
The significant decrease in the cost per kilo of cannabis from Mexico, a 90% drop, is a testament to the impact of competition from legal markets. This price drop suggests that legalization, when properly managed, can effectively challenge and potentially diminish the power of drug cartels.
Moreover, the comparison to the American Revolution over excessive taxation on tea provides a historical parallel. Just as the colonists rejected oppressive taxation, the current situation with cannabis calls for a reassessment of tax strategies. Over-taxation can hinder the success of the legal market, driving consumers and sellers to the black market.
The conclusion we can reach is that the Archbishop needs to take a step and truly analyze his position. If he did this, he would understand that he’s representing oppressive policies forged in the fires of lies and greed…but then again, the church is always after that 10% tithe of all your earnings…you know, for God and stuff.
CATHOLICS AGAINST CANNABIS, READ PART 1 BELOW…
Cannabis News
Latest Trump Weed Rumor – Trump Will Federally Deschedule and Decriminalize Cannabis, but Not Legalize It
In a recent interview, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie made headlines by asserting that President-elect Donald Trump will pursue significant reforms in federal policies regarding marijuana and cryptocurrency. As the nation grapples with evolving attitudes toward cannabis and the burgeoning digital currency market, Christie’s predictions have ignited discussions about the potential implications of such changes on both industries. This article delves into Christie’s insights, the current state of marijuana and cryptocurrency regulations, and the broader implications of these anticipated reforms.
The Current Landscape of Marijuana Legislation
Federal vs. State Laws
Marijuana remains classified as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which places it in the same category as heroin and LSD. This classification has created a complex legal landscape where states have moved to legalize cannabis for medical and recreational use, while federal law continues to impose strict prohibitions. As of now, over 30 states have legalized marijuana in some form, leading to a burgeoning industry that generates billions in revenue.
Challenges Faced by the Cannabis Industry
Despite its legality in many states, the cannabis industry faces significant hurdles due to federal restrictions. These challenges include:
-
Banking Access: Many banks are hesitant to work with cannabis businesses due to fear of federal repercussions, forcing these businesses to operate largely in cash.
-
Taxation Issues: The IRS enforces Section 280E of the tax code, which prohibits businesses engaged in illegal activities from deducting normal business expenses, leading to disproportionately high tax burdens for cannabis companies.
-
Interstate Commerce: The lack of federal legalization prevents cannabis businesses from operating across state lines, limiting their growth potential.
Chris Christie’s Perspective on Marijuana Reform
Christie, a former presidential candidate known for his tough stance on drugs during his tenure as governor, has evolved his views on marijuana over the years. In his recent statements, he emphasized that Trump is likely to pursue descheduling cannabis, which would remove it from the Schedule I classification. This move would not only provide clarity for businesses operating in legal markets but also open avenues for banking and investment.
Christie highlighted that descheduling would allow for a more regulated market where safety standards could be established, thus protecting consumers. He believes that this approach aligns with a growing consensus among Americans who support legalization and recognize the potential benefits of cannabis use for both medical and recreational purposes.
The Future of Cryptocurrency Regulation = The Rise of Cryptocurrencies
Cryptocurrencies have surged in popularity over the past decade, with Bitcoin leading the charge as the first decentralized digital currency. The market has expanded to include thousands of alternative coins (altcoins), each with unique features and use cases. As cryptocurrencies gain traction among investors and consumers alike, regulatory scrutiny has intensified.
Current Regulatory Challenges
The cryptocurrency market faces several regulatory challenges that hinder its growth and adoption:
-
Lack of Clarity: Regulatory frameworks vary significantly across states and countries, creating confusion for investors and businesses.
-
Fraud and Scams: The rapid growth of cryptocurrencies has led to an increase in fraudulent schemes targeting unsuspecting investors.
-
Consumer Protection: Without clear regulations, consumers are often left vulnerable to risks associated with volatile markets.
Christie’s Vision for Crypto Regulation
Christie believes that under Trump’s leadership, there will be an effort to find a “sweet spot” for cryptocurrency regulation balancing innovation with consumer protection. He argues that overly stringent regulations could stifle growth in this emerging sector while too little oversight could expose consumers to significant risks.
In his view, a balanced regulatory framework would include:
1. Clear Definitions: Establishing clear definitions for different types of cryptocurrencies and tokens to differentiate between securities and utility tokens.
2. Consumer Protections: Implementing measures to protect investors from fraud while promoting transparency within the market.
3. Encouraging Innovation: Creating an environment conducive to innovation by allowing startups to thrive without excessive regulatory burdens.
Christie’s insights reflect a growing recognition among policymakers that cryptocurrencies are here to stay and that appropriate regulations are necessary to foster growth while safeguarding consumers.
Implications of Proposed Reforms
Economic Impact
The potential reforms proposed by Christie could have far-reaching economic implications:
-
Job Creation: Legalizing marijuana at the federal level could lead to significant job creation within the cannabis industry—from cultivation and production to retail sales.
-
Investment Opportunities: Descheduling cannabis would open up investment opportunities for institutional investors who have been hesitant due to federal restrictions.
-
Boosting Local Economies: Legal cannabis markets have proven beneficial for local economies through increased tax revenues and job creation.
Similarly, clear regulations around cryptocurrencies could stimulate investment in blockchain technology and related industries, fostering innovation and economic growth.
Social Justice Considerations
Both marijuana legalization and sensible cryptocurrency regulations have social justice implications:
-
Addressing Past Injustices: Legalizing marijuana could help rectify past injustices related to drug enforcement policies that disproportionately affected marginalized communities.
-
Financial Inclusion: Cryptocurrencies offer opportunities for financial inclusion for those underserved by traditional banking systems, particularly in low-income communities.
Political Landscape
The political landscape surrounding these issues is complex. While there is bipartisan support for marijuana reform among certain lawmakers, challenges remain in overcoming entrenched opposition. Similarly, cryptocurrency regulation has garnered attention from both sides of the aisle but requires collaboration to establish effective frameworks.
Conclusion
Chris Christie’s predictions about President-elect Donald Trump’s approach to federal marijuana descheduling and cryptocurrency regulation suggest a potential shift in U.S. policy that could significantly reshape both industries. As public opinion evolves on these issues, lawmakers have an opportunity to enact meaningful reforms that promote economic growth while ensuring consumer protection. The anticipated changes could foster a more robust cannabis industry that contributes positively to the economy and addresses social justice concerns, while clear regulatory frameworks for cryptocurrencies could encourage innovation and protect consumers in the digital economy. Stakeholders in both sectors are closely watching these developments, eager to see how potential reforms might impact their futures. While the realization of Christie’s predictions remains uncertain, it’s clear that the conversation around marijuana and cryptocurrency regulation is ongoing and far from settled.
TRUMP 2.0 ON CANNABIS REFORM, READ ON…
TRUMP 2.0 ON FEDERAL CANNABIS REFORM – WHAT DO WE KNOW?
“How Long Does One Puff of Weed Stay in Your System?”… This topic can be difficult to answer since it is dependent on elements such as the size of the hit and what constitutes a “one hit.” If you take a large bong pull then cough, it might linger in your system for 5-7 days. A moderate dose from a joint can last 3-5 days, whereas a few hits from a vaporizer may last 1-3 days.
The length of time that marijuana stays in the body varies based on a number of factors, including metabolism, THC levels, frequency of use, and hydration.
Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, is the primary psychoactive component of cannabis. THC and its metabolites, which remain in your body long after the effects have subsided, are detected by drug tests.
Since these metabolites are fat-soluble, they cling to bodily fat molecules. They could thus take a while to fully pass through your system, particularly if your body fat percentage is higher.
THC is absorbed by tissues and organs (including the brain, heart, and fat) and converted by the liver into chemicals such as 11-hydroxy-THC and carboxy-THC. Cannabis is eliminated in feces at a rate of around 65%, while urine accounts for 20%. The leftover amount might be kept within the body.
THC deposited in bodily tissues ultimately re-enters the circulation and is processed by the liver. For frequent users, THC accumulates in fatty tissues quicker than it can be removed, thus it may be detectable in drug tests for days or weeks following consumption.
The detection time varies according to the amount and frequency of cannabis usage. Higher dosages and regular usage result in longer detection times.
The type of drug test also affects detection windows. Blood and saliva tests typically detect cannabis metabolites for shorter periods, while urine and hair samples can reveal use for weeks or even months. In some cases, hair tests have detected cannabis use over 90 days after consumption.
Detection Windows for Various Cannabis Drug Tests
Urine Tests
Among all drug tests, urine testing is the most commonly used method for screening for drug use in an individual.
Detection times vary, but a 2017 review suggests the following windows for cannabis in urine after last use:
– Single-use (e.g., one joint): up to 3 days
– Moderate use (around 4 times a week): 5–7 days
– Chronic use (daily): 10–15 days
– Chronic heavy use (multiple times daily): over 30 days
Blood Tests
Blood tests generally detect recent cannabis use, typically within 2–12 hours after consumption. However, in cases of heavy use, cannabis has been detected up to 30 days later. Chronic heavy use can extend the detection period in the bloodstream.
Saliva Tests
THC can enter saliva through secondhand cannabis smoke, but THC metabolites are only present if you’ve personally smoked or ingested cannabis.
Saliva testing has a short detection window and can sometimes identify cannabis use on the same day. A 2020 review found that THC was detectable in the saliva of frequent users for up to 72 hours after use, and it may remain in saliva longer than in blood following recent use.
In areas where cannabis is illegal, saliva testing is often used for roadside screenings.
Hair Tests
Hair follicle tests can detect cannabis use for up to 90 days. After use, cannabinoids reach the hair follicles through small blood vessels and from sebum and sweat surrounding the hair.
Hair grows at approximately 0.5 inches per month, so a 1.5-inch segment of hair close to the scalp can reveal cannabis use over the past three months.
Factors Affecting THC and Metabolite Retention
The length of time THC and its metabolites stay in your system depends on various factors. Some, like body mass index (BMI) and metabolic rate, relate to individual body processing, not the drug itself.
Other factors are specific to cannabis use, including:
– Dosage: How much you consume
– Frequency: How often you use cannabis
– Method of consumption: Smoking, dabbing, edibles, or sublingual
– THC potency: Higher potency can extend detection time
Higher doses and more frequent use generally extend THC retention. Cannabis consumed orally may remain in the system slightly longer than smoked cannabis, and stronger cannabis strains, higher in THC, may also stay detectable for a longer period.
How Quickly Do the Effects of Cannabis Set In?
When smoking cannabis, effects appear almost immediately, while ingested cannabis may take 1–3 hours to peak.
The psychoactive component THC produces a “high” with common effects such as:
– Altered senses, including perception of time
– Mood changes
– Difficulty with thinking and problem-solving
– Impaired memory
Other short-term effects can include:
– Anxiety and confusion
– Decreased coordination
– Dry mouth and eyes
– Nausea or lightheadedness
– Trouble focusing
– Increased appetite
– Rapid heart rate
– Restlessness and sleepiness
In rare cases, high doses may lead to hallucinations, delusions, or acute psychosis.
Regular cannabis use may have additional mental and physical effects. While research is ongoing, cannabis use may increase the risk of:
– Cognitive issues like memory loss
– Cardiovascular problems including heart disease and stroke
– Respiratory illnesses such as bronchitis or lung infections
– Mood disorders like depression and anxiety
Cannabis use during pregnancy can negatively impact fetal growth and development.
Duration of Effects
Short-term effects generally taper off within 1–3 hours, but for chronic users, some long-term effects may last days, weeks, or even months. Certain effects may even be permanent.
Bottom Line
The amount of time that cannabis remains in your system following a single use varies greatly depending on individual characteristics such as body fat, metabolism, frequency of use, and mode of intake. Frequent users may maintain traces of THC for weeks, whereas infrequent users may test positive for as little as a few days. Hair tests can disclose usage for up to 90 days, while blood and saliva tests identify more recent use. Urine tests are the most popular and have varying detection durations. The duration that THC and its metabolites are detectable will ultimately depend on a number of factors, including dose, strength, and individual body chemistry.
PEE IN A CUP COMING UP, READ ON..
Latest Trump Weed Rumor – Trump Will Federally Deschedule and Decriminalize Cannabis, but Not Legalize It
Webinar Replay: Post-Election Cannabis Wrap – Smoke ’em if You’ve Got ’em
I Had Just One Puff
Marijuana firms Eaze, Green Dragon find new life after $10 million capital infusion
Get some rest on Modified Grapes—November’s Leafly HighLight
Is Kratom Addictive? Understanding Dependence, Risks, and Safe Usage
New Rule, December 5: Oregon Cannabis Retailers, Processors and Labor Peace Agreements
The CBD Dog Treat Guide
Trippin’ Golf Balls – Can Magic Mushrooms Help Your Golf Game?
Australian Broadcasting Corp Alleges Military Veterans Have Been Targeted By Medicinal Cannabis Companies Via Social Media & Offered Free “Product”
Distressed Cannabis Business Takeaways – Canna Law Blog™
United States: Alex Malyshev And Melinda Fellner Discuss The Intersection Of Tax And Cannabis In New Video Series – Part VI: Licensing (Video)
What you Need to Know
Drug Testing for Marijuana – The Joint Blog
NCIA Write About Their Equity Scholarship Program
It has been a wild news week – here’s how CBD and weed can help you relax
Cannabis, alcohol firm SNDL loses CA$372.4 million in 2022
A new April 20 cannabis contest includes a $40,000 purse
Your Go-To Source for Cannabis Logos and Designs
UArizona launches online cannabis compliance online course
-
Cannabis News2 years agoDistressed Cannabis Business Takeaways – Canna Law Blog™
-
One-Hit Wonders2 years agoUnited States: Alex Malyshev And Melinda Fellner Discuss The Intersection Of Tax And Cannabis In New Video Series – Part VI: Licensing (Video)
-
Cannabis 1012 years agoWhat you Need to Know
-
drug testing11 months agoDrug Testing for Marijuana – The Joint Blog
-
Education2 years agoNCIA Write About Their Equity Scholarship Program
-
Cannabis2 years agoIt has been a wild news week – here’s how CBD and weed can help you relax
-
Marijuana Business Daily2 years agoCannabis, alcohol firm SNDL loses CA$372.4 million in 2022
-
California2 years agoA new April 20 cannabis contest includes a $40,000 purse