4 ms·
> Supporters of SB 3 argued that a full prohibition was necessary to protect young people from consuming products with high concentrations of THC. This is a bi
by _fat_santa 1y ago
> Supporters of SB 3 argued that a full prohibition was necessary to protect young people from consuming products with high concentrations of THC.
This is a bit like saying: in order to prevent minors from getting their hands on Everlear or 151, we must ban all alcohol in all forms.
> Though that 2019 law does not allow products to contain more than trace amounts of delta-9 THC, it did not establish that same threshold for other hemp derivatives. Critics say the hemp industry exploited that loophole to usher in more than 8,000 retailers selling THC-laced edibles, drinks, vapes and flower buds across Texas.
And here lies the real problem I see, when state governments start banning recreational cannabis and instead have "hemp loopholes", you end up with a much sketchier product for consumers. In Colorado I can go to the dispensary and buy "pure pot" that is just flower that was grown, dried and packaged with no other modification. With these hemp derivatives like Delta 8/9/etc, they distill down the various parts into a chemical form and then spray that shit on hemp flower or add it to other products.
Now the question I ask is: how was it distilled? what chemicals were used in the process? are those chemicals safe? and a million other related questions. With regular pot there's none of that.
And the last thing I'll say on this is it seems that pot has unfortunately gotten tangled up in the culture war here in the US. Lots of folks I see now that oppose cannabis legalization don't really have a specific reason to oppose it, they just do because "pot" is now a proxy for "woke" and "liberal" and they have to own the libs.
- parpfish 1y agoPot has always been tangled in the culture war. The war on drugs prohibition that ramped up in the 60s/70s was specifically done to criminalize the anti-war left.
- intuitionist 1y ago> Now the question I ask is: how was it distilled? what chemicals were used in the process? are those chemicals safe? and a million other related questions. With regular pot there's none of that. You absolutely should be asking those questions about “regular pot” as well. AIUI concentrates are among the bestselling and most profitable products in legal states, and they use uncertain chemicals of questionable provenance even if the delta-9 THC is 100% natty. But even if you’re just buying flower you could reasonably be concerned about pesticides or mold [1]. I think there are some quite good reasons to oppose cannabis legalization (for example, it’s made the super-high-potency concentrates which are associated with bad outcomes much more widely available) and it’s possible your own culture war or other biases are getting in your way here. But there are also lots of good arguments in favor of course. [1] https://www.wsj.com/health/healthcare/marijuana-mold-contaminants-safety-a172c230 https://www.wsj.com/health/healthcare/marijuana-mold-contami...
- op00to 1y ago> With regular pot there's none of that What about fertilizers? Chemicals sprayed on the flower? Mold or other contaminants? Mystery THC derivatives are bad, but so is cheaply grown weed. Why aren't we worried about contaminants in liquor and beer? How can that be applied to THC products?
- 9283409232 1y agoLiquor is highly regulated which may lead you to believe that Texas should legalize and regulate THC products.
- op00to 1y agoThey should! And invest profits of liquor and THC in education for kids and anti-addiction treatments.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- larrled 1y ago“flower that was grown, dried and packaged with no other modification” Who determines what is acceptable for that and who does the testing and how? Like, can they spray with neem oil to counter pests and it’s still organic “pure pot” but you would be smoking traces of neem oil? I find the concept of “pure pot” somewhat dubious. Isn’t hash more pure?