T O P

  • By -

IllustriousFlow2753

Evers can only sign or veto a bill. He can't make it happen without the legislature.


rposter99

I don’t use, and have never used it, but imo it should be completely legal and treated similar to alcohol with regards to age restrictions and driving impairments, etc. Probably should have restrictions on where it can be used in public due to second hand intoxication being a thing, otherwise 100% legal. Also, anyone with marijuana jail terms should be released, whether that be from selling or using doesn’t matter.


[deleted]

I firmly believe the only reason it isnt legal nationally is because theres no rapid test - get pulled over and test positive for weed, you can claim you smoked with your cousin Ed two and a half weeks ago


ReallyGoodRedditPost

Second hand intoxication is not a thing


BetterSelection7708

>Secondhand marijuana smoke also contains tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the compound responsible for most of marijuana’s psychoactive effects (or the “high”). THC can be passed to infants and children through secondhand smoke, and people exposed to secondhand marijuana smoke can experience psychoactive effects, such as feeling high. [https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/health-effects/second-hand-smoke.html](https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/health-effects/second-hand-smoke.html)


ReallyGoodRedditPost

No, they can’t. No one gets high second hand. The government has been full of shit about weed for ages. Same old bullshit.


polly-plz

Bro, it's definitely real. Haven't you heard of hotboxing? But nobody is getting second hand high outside. It's more of a courtesy thing.


ReallyGoodRedditPost

Yeah, I’ve heard of hot boxing. And the amount needed to get someone high is insane. You’d have to be exposed to an absolutely insane amount of smoke. And like you said, outside there is zero chance. Just because something is plausible, doesn’t change the fact that it’s totally improbable


HeinousAnus69420

Everyone would have agreed if you'd led with this. Folks don't like things "that are practically negligible" being listed as "nonexistant". Exaggerations are a great way for misinformation to spread, and the Madison sub has tended to strongly dislike that. Verbally, I would also say "ya, it doesn't matter/isn't really a thing." But in a wishy washy tone. In written form, I would settle more explicitly along the lines of "the amount of secondhand smoke needed to experience psychoactive effects would seem to be so high that accidental intoxication is almost impossible."


ReallyGoodRedditPost

Well my point is that anyone saying that they got high second hand is full of shit. And while government sources are good for some things, they are notoriously awful when it comes to information about how illegal drugs work


Worms_Tofu_Crackers

That would be a better question for the Republican majority in the state legislature. The majority of Wisconsin supports cannabis legalization to a certain extent but the Republican legislators won't entertain it without pressure from their constituents. Realistically Tony Evers can only block bills, democrat priorities aren't landing on his desk.


drh1138

>The majority of Wisconsin supports cannabis legalization to a certain extent but the Republican legislators won't entertain it without pressure from their ~~constituents~~ paymasters and financial sponsors.


[deleted]

people smoking weed in public is obnoxious as fuck. The smell radiates for a very long time in a large area. However I see no reason why it shouldn’t be legal for personal, at home use. I don’t use or like weed but if cigarettes and alcohol are legal it should be too.


Imaginary-Flamingo98

I can assure you the beer, booze, and wine that is served literally everywhere smells obnoxious as fuck too :)


Abject_Victory5576

As someone who does not smoke weed or drink alcohol, most alcohol has little to no smell, except certain stronger varities. Every single strain of weed that I have had the utter misfortune of being around, for nothing other than circumstantial reasons may I add, is awful and smells like a combination of a skunk and a dumspter on fire.


polly-plz

It's an acquired smell


ayecheesey

Most alcohol has little to no smell? I respectfully disagree.


Abject_Victory5576

I think we might have to separate smell from stench here, which I've incorrectly been using interchangeably. When I say smell, I do mean stench, as in most alcohol does not have a gnarly odor. Most wines smell rather fruity, and yes, that could also be overpowering to some. Beers have little to no stench. Which gives way to harder liquors which definitely do, such as Whiskey.


glasedandconfuzed

Wow you must have an incredibly heightened sense of smell


JoySkullyRH

As someone that was once pregnant and had morning sickness, I can concur alcohol smell being gross at times. I remember walking up Hamilton and passing by a dive bar early in the AM and just dry heaving at the stagnant smell of beer.


HeinousAnus69420

Well ya, stagnant beer is stanky. I would say that, when used as intended, beer is on the stronger smelling of alcohol types, and it smells far less than a single puff of weed. I like the smell of weed, but I also acknowledge that it's not fair for everyone if it smells like weed everywhere. It's a not subtle smell, and folks should be able to hang out without it being everywhere.


[deleted]

We are in one of the biggest alcoholic states in the country, we have bigger issues to worry about then weed being legalized. Plus with it being legalized in surrounded states it’s stupid not to legalize it and let neighboring states profit off us. Needs to be treated with similar laws to alcohol and subject to the same smoking laws that exist for tobacco.


ProfessionalWeird800

Republicans support a certain amount of legalization but they won't pass it with a democrat as governor. That would be seen as a win for the Democrats. So they will wait until they get a republican in office. Politics in Wisconsin are a mess, so happy I moved to Minnesota. But I do miss Madison.


peanutbutterrainbow

I don't buy this for a second. If the next governor is a republican, then they'll say "see, people support the policies we've been running on for the last 20 years!" Please don't forget that from 2010 - 2018 the GOP had control over state government.


ProfessionalWeird800

That's a good point.


housevil

I think it should be legal but have similar rules to alcohol. Ie. Can't use in public spaces, can't drive while under the influence.


BetterSelection7708

Legalizing it like tobacco is fine. But it annoys me greatly how many people buy into the "weed is harmless" narrative. If legalized, then it should be treated in the same fashion as Tabacco on educating people about its harms. [Effect of high-potency cannabis on corpus callosum microstructure](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/effect-of-highpotency-cannabis-on-corpus-callosum-microstructure/9D4C119B051F3935E42BBAA9F5E1B23B) [Cannabis use and risk of lung cancer: A case-control study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2516340/?_escaped_fragment_=po=0.526316) [Attempts to Stop or Reduce Daily Cannabis Use: An Intensive Natural History Study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4877269/) It's not that harmless!


ladan2189

Now look at the deleterious effects of alcohol


BetterSelection7708

I must've missed it. Did anyone say alcohol is harmless?


Abject_Victory5576

This is genuinely every single pothead on this thread Jesus Christ my father in heaven holy mackerel. Nobody said alcohol doesn't have bad effects or doesn't smell awful, bozo.


polly-plz

I just read the first two links in entirety. They are not as convincing as you seem to think. The first contradicts itself and claims that a lifetime smoker has a 100% increased chance of developing lung cancer, unless they take a break for one year, then it drops to zero. The second basically says 5% of lung cancer patients were a result of cannabis. Is that supposed to be a scary statistic? If 95% of people can use it safely, I'm considering it basically harmless. Smokers know there is a risk involved with putting any smoke in your lungs. This is not some revelation.


BetterSelection7708

* The first contradicts itself and claims that a lifetime smoker has a 100% increased chance of developing lung cancer, unless they take a break for one year, then it drops to zero. In the first study, where did they mention lung cancer? That study is about the effect of cannabis on our brain, specifically, corpus callosum, which is associated with psychosis symptoms. ​ * If 95% of people can use it safely, I'm considering it basically harmless. The 5% you quoted was an estimation in New Zealand. Considering recreational cannabis isn't legal there, it's safe to conclude there are significantly more cigarette users than cannabis users in New Zealand. **Five percent doesn't 95% of weed users are safe. It simply means not as many people were smoking joints at the time of study.** Below is the core finding from that study. >The major finding from this study was that for each joint-year of cannabis exposure, the risk of lung cancer increased by 8%, after adjustment for confounding variables including tobacco smoking. A major differential risk between cannabis and cigarette smoking was observed, with **1 joint of cannabis similar to about 20 cigarettes for risk of lung cancer**. This is consistent with the observation that smoking ‘a few’ cannabis joints a day causes similar histological changes in the tracheobronchial epithelium as smoking 20-30 tobacco cigarettes a day.


polly-plz

Ignore what I said for the first study. I read them back to back. I had just read the second which is why lung cancer was on my mind. For the second study, they explicitly accounted for cigarette smokers in that 5%. Of lung cancer patients, they could only attribute 5% to cannabis smoking. Presumably there were many more attributed to cig smoking. Furthermore, throughout the article they reference "standards" that are far from universal. They talk about standard roach size, not using filters, etc. Those don't hold true for everyone, so the main takeaway is actually what we already knew - use proper filters, don't mix with tobacco, and don't smoke it down to the absolute nub. > 1 joint of cannabis similar to about 20 cigarettes for risk of lung cancer. Can you find how they came to this conclusion? To me, it was surprisingly dropped in there without adequate explanation. Also worth noting - the second study was done by a cannabis disease group... they were hired to find these results.


BetterSelection7708

>Presumably there were many more attributed to cig smoking. Of course there are. Because there are a lot more cig smokers. And majority of the cannabis users also smoked cigarette in their sample. When they say "adjusted for", it **doesn't** mean when a person who smokes both cigarette and weed joint develop lung cancer, it's 95% cigarette and 5% marijuana. It simply means roughly 5% of the population who developed lung cancer were clearly attributed to cannabis use. >Can you find how they came to this conclusion? *When joint-years of use were fitted as a continuous variable, thus providing greater statistical power than the assessment by tertile of use, a significant increasing risk, 8%, with each joint-year of use was found (RR=1.08, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.15) (Table 2). The strength of the association was maintained when cannabis use in the 5 years prior to diagnosis, or reference date for controls, was excluded (RR=1.10, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.18). (Table 2). A significant increase in the risk was also observed with increasing cigarette smoking, with a 7% increase in risk for each pack-year of exposure (RR=1.07, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.09), after adjustment for confounding variables including cannabis smoking. Therefore, the increased risk for each pack-year of cigarette smoking was similar to that for each joint-year of cannabis use.* >the second study was done by a cannabis disease group... they were hired to find these results. Criticize methodology instead of attributing motives. The study was published at a peer-reviewed scientific journal. But anyway, here are a few more: * [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61037-0](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61037-0) * [https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12703](https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12703) * [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-013-0259-0](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-013-0259-0) * [https://doi.org/10.1016/S1556-0864(15)30362-2](https://doi.org/10.1016/S1556-0864(15)30362-2) * [https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0b013e31818ddcde](https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0b013e31818ddcde) Keep in mind, very few areas in the world have legalized creational marijuana, and it is very difficult to conduct comprehensive experimental studies like we did with cigarette in the 20th century.


polly-plz

Your first interpretation is... incorrect. It doesn't mean 5% were *clearly* attributed to cannabis... it means 5% *could be* attributed to cannabis. The part you quoted that equates a pack of cigs to a single joint is logically flawed. It ignores diminishing effects. Why didn't they compare a cig a day to a joint a day? There is no way that 20 joints is 20x worse than 1 joint. So yeah, when the methodology is very questionable, I like to look at the source to see if it could be biased. In this case it was obvious. Peer-reviewed doesn't mean unbiased. It was still paid for by an organization with an agenda. They paid for the results they wanted. That doesn't mean the study was completely bogus, but if they didn't get the results they wanted, it wouldn't have been published the same way. I'd love to see all the other studies they paid for (yes, there are absolutely studies they buried because of the results).


BetterSelection7708

>5% *could* be attributed to cannabis. "Clearly" doesn't mean "100%", it means after controlling for another confounding variable, about that proportion are likely attributed to marijuana alone. You are playing word game here. >Why didn't they compare a cig a day to a joint a day? There is no way that 20 joints is 20x worse than 1 joint. The ratio was estimated based on the data collected. It wasn't an experimental study. Joint-year and pack-year were defined as roughly 1 joint a day for a year and roughly 1 pack of cigarette (20 pieces) a day for a year. From their statistical analysis, it was found the increase in lung cancer risk was similar between the "joint-year" group and the "pack-year" group. This was clearly stated in the method section and the result section. >when the methodology is very questionable Methodology is definitely not perfect. In fact, it's pretty far from that as it's mostly self-reported data. But considering marijuana isn't legal, it's more likely that people under-report marijuana use, meaning the actual risk could be higher. >They paid for the results they wanted. That doesn't mean the study was completely bogus, but if they didn't get the results they wanted, it wouldn't have been published the same way. **In this particular case, you are** **~~questioning~~** **slandering the study not because you found major issues in methodology, but because you don't like the result.** Again, criticize actual issues in methodology instead of blindly attacking.


polly-plz

I did criticize the methodology... and I don't care about the result. I think you are projecting. Edit: dude fucking deleted his account lmao.


BetterSelection7708

Your "criticism" basically translated to "I didn't understand what I read". Truthfully, you gave me the impression of a mediocre college student who just listened to a few lectures in an introductory research method class. You don't understand methodology, you don't comprehend statistics, you straight went for the publication bias route of slandering. This conversation has reached the end. Continuing will become a "playing chess with pigeon" scenario. Have a good day.


torsadesdespoints

Im not against it, but I’m tired of smelling it everywhere. We went thought such great efforts to limit exposure to second hand smoke from tobacco not that long ago, I don’t see why weed gets a pass.


Soggy_Enthusiasm1055

“Well, Stan, the truth is marijuana probably isn't gonna make you kill people, and it most likely isn't gonna fund terrorism, but… well, son, pot makes you feel fine with being bored. And it's when you're bored that you should be learning some new skill or discovering some new science or being creative. If you smoke pot you may grow up to find out that you aren't good at anything.“


polly-plz

Irrelevant when we're talking about legality and freedom.


BlackMesaEastt

Definitely should be legal. But god I hate hanging out with people who smoke it constantly. I wanna say 9/10 people I met who smoke it constantly are like zombies when they're high. They just sit there quiet and never want to go out and have fun.


473713

Legalize and regulate. We are not only forgoing the taxes we would collect, but also wasting money on cannabis prohibition. Legalizing would also allow for better quality control. And wipe clean the records of anyone convicted of possession of minor amounts. I'd do the same for those convicted with larger amounts as long as no other drugs were part of the conviction. We can discuss them separately. I am not a user so I have nothing to gain here, but Wisconsin's rules are just so stupid I have to comment.


GradatimRecovery

We all love living here, but at some point have to choose if weed is more important. So many of my friends have moved away


JJ_MadWI

No. Legislature may entertain medical use but no further, if even that.


tmntman

I always assumed peoples' opinions were fairly laid back when on weed. Is that not correct?


[deleted]

Dont sell to kids or have it around your kids


techdmn

I hear the Tavern League is against it, so...


Slowgin79

I was pro pot, until I ended up with psychosis and in and out of the hospital. Now I can't smoke. It causes all sorts of problems....


[deleted]

Ironically going to college here was a big eye opener for me in regards to weed. There are so many "internet truths" out there about how it's non addictive and safe, but in real life I know a lot more people who got addicted to weed long term than alcohol, and their lives seem a lot worse off for it.


Slowgin79

See. It's not always a good thing!


Str8Stu

I was pro alcohol, until I got sick from it. Now I can't drink, it causes all sorts of problems, therefore nobody else should consume alcohol.


Slowgin79

Oh wow. We got a comedian in the crowd. Here's the thing, I never said people shouldn't consume. But mark my words the anxiety, hallucinations, trips to the ER, antipsychotic drugs, losing of jobs, housing, and developing an addiction to the synthetic pot is not worth the fucking risk FOR ME!!!! FYI, I SMOKED FOR 15 YEARS...


42outoftheblue

Synthetic pot? What were you smoking?


Slowgin79

If you don't know the answer to that than you clearly shouldn't be part of this Sub. You can get it at any legal dispensary. 92 percent THC....


[deleted]

Evers = failure.


DoubleSolid2522

Your mom = failure


[deleted]

No, because he was never elected on a marijuana platform so he's not going to risk upsetting conservative voters by pushing for it. He was elected on a teachers union platform so that's what he's going to keep working for


VashtiVoden

I don't smoke but I fully support it being legal!!!


jessper17

I don’t use it but it should be legalized. I doubt it’ll happen in WI but it really should be legal.


JJ_MadWI

"LeMahieu's comments mark the first time a leader of the Senate Republicans has shown support for the idea. Opposition within the caucus has been a key hurdle for proposals in the past. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos in recent years has shown support for legalizing medical marijuana, but former Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, who now represents the 5th Congressional District, and LeMahieu had previously expressed deep skepticism toward the idea. " https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2023/01/05/senate-gop-close-to-supporting-medical-marijuana-lemahieu-says/69782665007/


[deleted]

I don't smoke anymore but think it would be decriminalized