dillon wrote:
Here's the thing though - banning smoking in places was always easy because it's just a habit. But now, weve gone so far down the "medicinal marijuana" route (probably because nobody thought we'd have a pm legalizing it in 2018), that it seems like it would be discriminatory to prevent people from doing something that they need to do as part of their medical care. Don't get me wrong, I'm no big fan of the medical marijuana industry, but it seems like a case of "in for a penny, in for a pound". If we're gonna say it's a medicine and it's legit, then it makes sense we protect people who choose/need to use it in those circumstances.
I can promise you that like everything else, the media is making this in to a bigger deal than it needs to be - mostly because everyone wants to talk about MJ legalization these days. There are more ways to consume medical cannabis than smoking.
In fact, the most common method for medicinal use is ingestion, which is obviously undetectable. Many frequent users are using vaporizers now as well, which although aren't 100% smell-proof while in use, are generally undectectable following a "session." They also offer more control over what temperature the material is cooked at, allowing the user to adjust vapour production accordingly. Smoking your dank indoors is unnecessary at this point, and if you don't actually own a property you shouldn't necessarily be allowed to burn things inside it.
The future man, it's wild.
dillon wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I'm no big fan of the medical marijuana industry
Why? If it actually does offer people with certain conditions relief without side effects, is this not a good thing worthy of permission? How many people would a particular medicine have to help before you became a big fan of it?