As someone who has gotten the full education on drugs and drug policy, this explanation is very misleading. I won't bore you with the details, but let's establish a few things. First of all, 80-90% of all drug users, for all drugs, do not use their drugs pathologically. This is true of methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, marijuana and everything in between. Put another way, pathological, harmful use of these drugs is notoriously uncommon, when you look at the entire population of those who use these drugs. We know this from various surveys conducted by scientists, the U.S. Government as well as the U.N. Furthermore, the ones who DO meet criteria for substance abuse disorder, a minority of them will actually be disrupted with it. What do I mean? Suppose I go out today, and I have, say, a glass or two of wine nightly for the next month or so. Or even 6 months. Suppose I crave wine strongly and I've developed tolerance to the drug. I, by this logic, would qualify as a substance abuser. Well what's the problem with this? For one, I'm still meeting my other life responsibilities, paying taxes, doing good in school and so on and so forth. Everything else that actually matters is still there, and I'm not being adversely affected.Furthermore, when he says "Abuse might go up as a result", this is not the case. In my own studies and in other reviews, we have evidence that "the policy environment (specifically legal status and enforcement policy) has at most a marginal impact on levels of drug use." This FURTHERMORE presumes that drugs are the cause of addiction/social ills; this is also not the case. We have a long historical record that documents not only evidence to the contrary, but it's widely known that across history, that drug use was always a concomitant of social ills, not drugs CAUSING the social ills themselves.Furthermore, USE is a terrible metric to decide whether or not somebody is addicted or being harmed by drugs. Even so-called "heavy use" is not necessarily pathological; as I've stated, a minority of drug users are harmed by their drug use.
+Jared Greathouse He addressed this. It doesn't matter if your habitual drug use doesn't interfere with your life, it's addressing that you use drug habitually and are unable to quit.
+Syberz2 Uhhhh.... pick one. You just said "It doesn't matter if you're habitually using and it's not messing with your life...it matters if you use habitually and are unable to quit." So which one? Can you use daily and be fine, or can't you? Kleiman is frankly a horrible analyst of drug policy, who speaks like he's never read a pharmacology book in his life. Drugs don't even cause drug addiction. If you're interested in preventing addiction, invest in drug education, anti-poverty programs, mental health and other social issues. Then you'll solve people who use habitually and can't quit.
+Syberz2 The point I'm making is, Kleiman and his crew frequently focus on the wrong things in their analysis. They oftentimes speak as though we've little clue as to what these drugs are, how they work in the brain, and so on. They speak as though, in a way, these drugs are inherently harmful, when this isn't the case. It's a frequent theme in Kleiman's writings, the idea that a substance being intoxicating or potentially habit forming is a good enough reason to ban it, or heavily restrict it
I know a guy that is in his 60s has worked full time at the same job for over 40 years. This guy smokes maybe 15 joints a day. What does he mean by to much weed? What's the worse thing that could happen when you smoke to much weed, Munchies and cartoons ? You might even fall to sleep. It can't be any worse then when people drink to much.
***** From what I have seen people like that wasn't much better off before the weed and they're not bothering anyone anyways. I wouldn't even have a problem with fining people for smoking it in public. Also what you are describing sounds more like pills to me. I can for the most part shake off weed when I need to. Just wondering do you smoke it yourself.
+BuddhaAtheist29 that's a salient point. can't really o.d. on herb. but none the less, it is habit forming(thats why that guy you mentioned smoked 15 joints a day, because he was addicted). Some people my not have the cash to keep up a really heavy habit though, and because they are addicted they could end up doing destructive things to get their cannabis. The issue isn't really about having "too much weed" but how having easier access to habit forming drugs will affect peoples lives. For the record im indifrent to pot and legalization. Not part of my world. I just want to point out the south park argument against weed. "...pot makes you feel fine with being bored and it's when you're bored that you should be learning a new skill or some new science or being creative..."
Reece Crump Candy-bars, coffee, Netflix, video games and fast food are habit forming too, but I have never seen anybody do destructive things to get them. Nobody are trying to make any of these things I have listed illegal. I have been around pot most of my life and have never seen anyone go do anything destructive to get it. I have even seen it motivate people. I have heard people say I need to work more hours so I can pay my bills and still be able to get some pot. The same guy I was talking about hasn't been able to smoke any for weeks at a time and all that happened was.,That is a bummer but life goes on. I'll get some when I get some. When it gets down to it it is about personal choice. Beer gets people killed, ruins many lives and families and it is legal and when they did make it illegal it was a disaster. That is what has happened with pot and it is very much less harmful then beer. Most of the problems that come from pot are from it being illegal not from the pot itself. If you want to minimize damage quit trying to enforce unenforceable laws. Illegal or not people will do it, but if it is legal you could make it as safe as possible. If you want to drink isn't it safer to go to the store and buy a beer then to get something made in a hillbilly's shed?
BuddhaAtheist29 1. ive seen plenty of destructive behavior induced from candy bars. we may not be making sugar out right illegal, but plenty of legislation is being passed to fight obesity and diabetes. 2. im a collage student! netflix is deadly to me! if i binge, i fail my classes and rank up even more student debt to retake them! and i totally agree pot is less dangerous then beer. I super mega agree that if everyone did pot instead of booze, we would all be a little bit safer. recreational Drugs just aren't for me (including booz). if i need a spot of soma one day, i'll change my tune, but for now im just gonna stay indifferent to weed. and you know what, after what you just said, im for legalizing it too. I just don't wanna partake
Reece Crump That is cool it is all about choice. If it isn't for you there isn't anything wrong with that. It's like I don't care for alcohol ,but I also don't think it should be a crime, making it a crime would only add to the problem and it really is just about moderation. Most people drink in moderation so it isn't a problem. Just like most people smoke pot in moderation. By the way the destructive behavior is induced from to many candy bars not the lack of being able to get a candy bar. And as long as you eat the candy bars in moderation they are pretty safe. So why punish the people that want to enjoy candy bars because some people can't enjoy them in moderation.
Didn't agree with everything he had to say, but it is really great to hear some level-headed rational discussion on the topic. One thing I would like to hear him address is the claim we hear often that regulation will lower under age use. In my personal experience as a minor it was much easier to find pot than it was to get alcohol...
This guy is responsible for an untold amount of human suffering by influencing people in positions who decide things (doctors, police, politicians). If it were all up to him, we'd live in a vat and receive sustenance through a cord in the arm. That way we'd be decent citizens to him.
+Isley Nagel Especially when if it is legal to grow it at home. If heavy daily users are concerned about cost, they will grow it. It doesn't need to be cured like tobacco or brewed like alcohol. If we acknowledge that the war on drugs has failed, we won't maintain a prohibition against growing it.
ACTUALLY weed HAS to be cured to be smokable, you can make concentrate with uncured cannabis however potency among other things is greatly affected by curing.
Weed was so much more easier to get ahold of when it was illegal than now that it's legal here in washington state! (Food for thought) Funny how weed is stigmatised when some of the most brilliant people in the world smoke and use marijuana like teachers, scientist and inventors! It's a brilliant plant that is good for the body especially for all your Cannabinoid receptors. The war on drugs is to blame for all the negative stigma that is related to pot smoking. Never once has there been an overdose/death related to marijuana. But look at Tobacco which is legal and it's responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. Not to mention Alcohol which is a legal poison/drug!!! But look up the real reason why Marijuana was made illegal in the first place. Some real BS
Great idea to have someone who has never smoked pot; pontificate about pot!! Remember Holland? They've tolerated pot use for over 30 years. Low violent crime rate etc... STOP ALL PROABITION OF EVERYTHING!!
I live in BC, and I can tell you that it's not crazy uncommon here. And it's no good. not as bad as alcoholism, but it still causes a lot of problems in peoples' personal lives--financially, emotionally, and in relationships.
You should also take a class on ethics, because you seem very confused and/or manipulated. I'm assuming you're pro legalizing marijuana. You're excited about a "huge market" of addicts whose insensitivity to price will give the government more taxes. Are you a monster?
ya im a monster obviously. im a monster who wants it to be legal for my mom who has stage 4 breast cancer to be able to use marijuana as a pain killer legally.
Notice how "tolerance", "addiction", "use", "abuse", and so on are never defined. The basic premise of the conversation is that use is something we can and should try to prevent... These presumptions are grandfathered into the discussion.
Where in the interview did you get that use should be OR could be prevented? I ask because I got the exact opposite impression, he seems very practical about the whole thing.
Well, if you read Professor Kleiman's writings, and when he says things like "The only issue is that some people will run into trouble with it," I get the impression that the only thing that's preventing him from just saying "Yeah, OF COURSE marijuana should be legal," is because of the things I've just mentioned. And to be clear, he isn't incorrect. Some people do run into trouble with their drug use, but that's not a problem with drugs. People can become addicted to sex, love, and other things, but nobody's saying "Well.. The only thing with legalizing sex is that some people will run into trouble with it." Again, he isn't wrong, but I think it misses the point. We know what the causes of addiction are and how to prevent it.
Which is why I advocate a decriminalization model (as does he from what I gather), abusers can be required to attend classes, not be stigmatized, or pushed into the dregs, where their problems are likely to be aggravated.
I like the points Max Kleiman made, but if the government has shown us anything, it's that they won't create the most rational solution. We will end up with either the tobacco or alcohol model of regulation and leave tens of billions of dollars on the table every year. If that money went to schools and improved education, drug abuse in general would go way down.
All this talk about MJ makes me want to go out for a quick bowl.. But b4 I do I gotta say that when it's true that today's weed is stronger you get to smoke less of it.. And in this economy we have stretch what few bucks we have..compared to smoking nasty ass weed and lots of it to get a fair high..this the future now we have productive lives to live and I can't be dealing with weed that is weak.
+kanolemaster +BobMarleyNug420 also further legalizing weed would have a trusted source who you could hold accountable compared to a drug dealers weed which could be laced with other drugs who can't be held accountable. Plus funds stay some what here in country and state, and not to drug lords and cartels.
***** I have arthritis and fibro causes me to have sciatic nerve pain it doesn't get rid of the pain but it eases it, dispensaries can better direct you toward a strain that wont make you feel as groggy but will help with the pain. the more you do it the less lazy you will feel. you just gotta start being productive and once you start it will actually feel easier to get the momentum to keep going! I usually get school work done because of that you just need to force yourself to do it in the beginning
+Hannes Lúðvíksson "O brave new world, That has such people in't" Soma is what they would take when hard times opened their eyes Saw pain in a new way, high stakes for a few names Racing against sun beams, losing against their dreams
As much as i want to give him shit for his unexperienced comments, he is honestly trying to help people. so were here to be understanding and hope that he gets it by the time he is dead
YES SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS US VAPORS. really i truly believe that in the next 10-20 we will all be vaping as opposed to smoking, maybe not entirely with cannabis because concentrates actually come from plants, where as eliquid does not actually use plants at and is synthesized. we can't grow our own eliquid and we can't synthesize our pot at home yet:/
+Isaac Davis I'm no audio expert, but it sounds to me like they might each have their own boom mic (Kleins voice is so much quieter when you hear him make acknowledgements while Kleiman is talking). They are also almost certainly using a noisegate on the audio, which shoves down the ambience when there's no vocal signal (between sentences)
wtf this dude contradicting himself. He said concentrates would replace smoking bud in 10 years, but then he says later on that its the "crack of cannabis" and "dabbing is just a fad" wut?
is it possible to just legalize marijuana but ban the sale of marijuana, and shut down commercial sellers. when so many people were smoking weed in 1979 as he said, had we already as a society widely known the harms of marijuana, and had social norms against it? what if we just kept it illegal but vastly lowered prison sentences and have better rehab programs?
...quietly loading my bong while he talks about why smoking is bad
Clearly this is probably the most intelligent explanation I've heard to date on marijuana
As someone who has gotten the full education on drugs and drug policy, this explanation is very misleading. I won't bore you with the details, but let's establish a few things. First of all, 80-90% of all drug users, for all drugs, do not use their drugs pathologically. This is true of methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, marijuana and everything in between. Put another way, pathological, harmful use of these drugs is notoriously uncommon, when you look at the entire population of those who use these drugs. We know this from various surveys conducted by scientists, the U.S. Government as well as the U.N. Furthermore, the ones who DO meet criteria for substance abuse disorder, a minority of them will actually be disrupted with it. What do I mean? Suppose I go out today, and I have, say, a glass or two of wine nightly for the next month or so. Or even 6 months. Suppose I crave wine strongly and I've developed tolerance to the drug. I, by this logic, would qualify as a substance abuser. Well what's the problem with this? For one, I'm still meeting my other life responsibilities, paying taxes, doing good in school and so on and so forth. Everything else that actually matters is still there, and I'm not being adversely affected.Furthermore, when he says "Abuse might go up as a result", this is not the case. In my own studies and in other reviews, we have evidence that "the policy environment (specifically legal status and enforcement policy) has at most a marginal impact on levels of drug use." This FURTHERMORE presumes that drugs are the cause of addiction/social ills; this is also not the case. We have a long historical record that documents not only evidence to the contrary, but it's widely known that across history, that drug use was always a concomitant of social ills, not drugs CAUSING the social ills themselves.Furthermore, USE is a terrible metric to decide whether or not somebody is addicted or being harmed by drugs. Even so-called "heavy use" is not necessarily pathological; as I've stated, a minority of drug users are harmed by their drug use.
Your point is well taken.
+Jared Greathouse He addressed this. It doesn't matter if your habitual drug use doesn't interfere with your life, it's addressing that you use drug habitually and are unable to quit.
+Syberz2 Uhhhh.... pick one. You just said "It doesn't matter if you're habitually using and it's not messing with your life...it matters if you use habitually and are unable to quit." So which one? Can you use daily and be fine, or can't you?
Kleiman is frankly a horrible analyst of drug policy, who speaks like he's never read a pharmacology book in his life. Drugs don't even cause drug addiction. If you're interested in preventing addiction, invest in drug education, anti-poverty programs, mental health and other social issues. Then you'll solve people who use habitually and can't quit.
+Syberz2 The point I'm making is, Kleiman and his crew frequently focus on the wrong things in their analysis. They oftentimes speak as though we've little clue as to what these drugs are, how they work in the brain, and so on. They speak as though, in a way, these drugs are inherently harmful, when this isn't the case. It's a frequent theme in Kleiman's writings, the idea that a substance being intoxicating or potentially habit forming is a good enough reason to ban it, or heavily restrict it
He said "shake" I see he's up with the lingo, my guy 😂
I know a guy that is in his 60s has worked full time at the same job for over 40 years. This guy smokes maybe 15 joints a day. What does he mean by to much weed? What's the worse thing that could happen when you smoke to much weed, Munchies and cartoons ? You might even fall to sleep. It can't be any worse then when people drink to much.
***** From what I have seen people like that wasn't much better off before the weed and they're not bothering anyone anyways. I wouldn't even have a problem with fining people for smoking it in public. Also what you are describing sounds more like pills to me. I can for the most part shake off weed when I need to. Just wondering do you smoke it yourself.
+BuddhaAtheist29 that's a salient point. can't really o.d. on herb. but none the less, it is habit forming(thats why that guy you mentioned smoked 15 joints a day, because he was addicted). Some people my not have the cash to keep up a really heavy habit though, and because they are addicted they could end up doing destructive things to get their cannabis. The issue isn't really about having "too much weed" but how having easier access to habit forming drugs will affect peoples lives. For the record im indifrent to pot and legalization. Not part of my world. I just want to point out the south park argument against weed. "...pot makes you feel fine with being bored and it's when you're bored that you should be learning a new skill or some new science or being creative..."
Reece Crump Candy-bars, coffee, Netflix, video games and fast food are habit forming too, but I have never seen anybody do destructive things to get them. Nobody are trying to make any of these things I have listed illegal. I have been around pot most of my life and have never seen anyone go do anything destructive to get it. I have even seen it motivate people. I have heard people say I need to work more hours so I can pay my bills and still be able to get some pot. The same guy I was talking about hasn't been able to smoke any for weeks at a time and all that happened was.,That is a bummer but life goes on. I'll get some when I get some. When it gets down to it it is about personal choice. Beer gets people killed, ruins many lives and families and it is legal and when they did make it illegal it was a disaster. That is what has happened with pot and it is very much less harmful then beer. Most of the problems that come from pot are from it being illegal not from the pot itself. If you want to minimize damage quit trying to enforce unenforceable laws. Illegal or not people will do it, but if it is legal you could make it as safe as possible. If you want to drink isn't it safer to go to the store and buy a beer then to get something made in a hillbilly's shed?
BuddhaAtheist29 1. ive seen plenty of destructive behavior induced from candy bars. we may not be making sugar out right illegal, but plenty of legislation is being passed to fight obesity and diabetes. 2. im a collage student! netflix is deadly to me! if i binge, i fail my classes and rank up even more student debt to retake them! and i totally agree pot is less dangerous then beer. I super mega agree that if everyone did pot instead of booze, we would all be a little bit safer. recreational Drugs just aren't for me (including booz). if i need a spot of soma one day, i'll change my tune, but for now im just gonna stay indifferent to weed. and you know what, after what you just said, im for legalizing it too. I just don't wanna partake
Reece Crump That is cool it is all about choice. If it isn't for you there isn't anything wrong with that. It's like I don't care for alcohol ,but I also don't think it should be a crime, making it a crime would only add to the problem and it really is just about moderation. Most people drink in moderation so it isn't a problem. Just like most people smoke pot in moderation. By the way the destructive behavior is induced from to many candy bars not the lack of being able to get a candy bar. And as long as you eat the candy bars in moderation they are pretty safe. So why punish the people that want to enjoy candy bars because some people can't enjoy them in moderation.
Didn't agree with everything he had to say, but it is really great to hear some level-headed rational discussion on the topic. One thing I would like to hear him address is the claim we hear often that regulation will lower under age use. In my personal experience as a minor it was much easier to find pot than it was to get alcohol...
wow this guy actually has a lot of really great things to say
11:30 his reaction changed so quick
This guy is responsible for an untold amount of human suffering by influencing people in positions who decide things (doctors, police, politicians). If it were all up to him, we'd live in a vat and receive sustenance through a cord in the arm. That way we'd be decent citizens to him.
Oh man I love that this dude thinks dabbing is a fad, four years later looking back is pretty funny
This guy grew up in an era of reefer madness. It shows..
4 drinks a day!!!! ZOMG!!!!!! PROBLEM! (if you are 80 pounds)
look, doctor downer, a 240 pound guy having 4 beers a day is NOT a heavy drinker
What if the 240lb guy is supposed to be 160lbs and he gained the weight from drinking 4 beers everyday
R. L. Nah dude 4 every day is a problem
I like a lot of points he made, but I think he's totally wrong about concentrates; smoking classic weed will never go out of style lol!!
+Isley Nagel Especially when if it is legal to grow it at home. If heavy daily users are concerned about cost, they will grow it. It doesn't need to be cured like tobacco or brewed like alcohol. If we acknowledge that the war on drugs has failed, we won't maintain a prohibition against growing it.
ACTUALLY weed HAS to be cured to be smokable, you can make concentrate with uncured cannabis however potency among other things is greatly affected by curing.
Weed was so much more easier to get ahold of when it was illegal than now that it's legal here in washington state! (Food for thought) Funny how weed is stigmatised when some of the most brilliant people in the world smoke and use marijuana like teachers, scientist and inventors! It's a brilliant plant that is good for the body especially for all your Cannabinoid receptors. The war on drugs is to blame for all the negative stigma that is related to pot smoking. Never once has there been an overdose/death related to marijuana. But look at Tobacco which is legal and it's responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. Not to mention Alcohol which is a legal poison/drug!!! But look up the real reason why Marijuana was made illegal in the first place. Some real BS
Great idea to have someone who has never smoked pot; pontificate about pot!! Remember Holland? They've tolerated pot use for over 30 years. Low violent crime rate etc... STOP ALL PROABITION OF EVERYTHING!!
+Cory Beatbox at least spell it correctly haha
+Cory Beatbox I beat your father is proud of how soft you turned out and can't take nonchalant criticism haha...
Ryan Kelly Are you just practicing your TROLL skills or do you really think that I give a flying fuck about what you have to say? lol.
+Cory Beatbox Just responding haha..and based on your responses i think ya do care bud
Ryan Kelly lmao!
Damn I'd like to see and updated interview after the election
So misinformed about dabing
but strong cannabis is great. I can buy small amount and it will last for ages!
lucky... i get the strongest possible in the area, still go through 1g a day
Smoking 8 joints a day?? Wtf that is way too much.
not for snoop dogg
I live in BC, and I can tell you that it's not crazy uncommon here. And it's no good. not as bad as alcoholism, but it still causes a lot of problems in peoples' personal lives--financially, emotionally, and in relationships.
I smoke two joints in the morning, I smoke two joints at night, I smoke to joints in the afternoon, it makes me feel alright.
Actually being an addict makes you insensitive to price, not more sensitive #elasticity #ECONOMICS101
except this is a product with deminishing returns for heavy users that moves faster than sensitivity to price
Did you fail the class?
You should also take a class on ethics, because you seem very confused and/or manipulated. I'm assuming you're pro legalizing marijuana. You're excited about a "huge market" of addicts whose insensitivity to price will give the government more taxes. Are you a monster?
ya im a monster obviously. im a monster who wants it to be legal for my mom who has stage 4 breast cancer to be able to use marijuana as a pain killer legally.
Addiction is still very different from habitual use. The psychiatric response is very different as well.
So he says using every day is addiction & an issue, but doesn't tell us WHY it's an issue. You need a better argument
Notice how "tolerance", "addiction", "use", "abuse", and so on are never defined. The basic premise of the conversation is that use is something we can and should try to prevent... These presumptions are grandfathered into the discussion.
Where in the interview did you get that use should be OR could be prevented? I ask because I got the exact opposite impression, he seems very practical about the whole thing.
Well, if you read Professor Kleiman's writings, and when he says things like "The only issue is that some people will run into trouble with it," I get the impression that the only thing that's preventing him from just saying "Yeah, OF COURSE marijuana should be legal," is because of the things I've just mentioned. And to be clear, he isn't incorrect. Some people do run into trouble with their drug use, but that's not a problem with drugs. People can become addicted to sex, love, and other things, but nobody's saying "Well.. The only thing with legalizing sex is that some people will run into trouble with it." Again, he isn't wrong, but I think it misses the point. We know what the causes of addiction are and how to prevent it.
Which is why I advocate a decriminalization model (as does he from what I gather), abusers can be required to attend classes, not be stigmatized, or pushed into the dregs, where their problems are likely to be aggravated.
+Judge Dredd I have no problem with decriminalization as a bridge, say for six months. It does have some decent aspects, no doubt.
+Judge Dredd My problem though, is why should we force people into treatment?
his take on dabbing is very skewed though:/
i'm Canadian . we treat cannabis kind of like liqueur. it is legal. but there are rules
Just legalize it all. You cannot solve all problems.
Great video. Some of us still appreciate a nuanced discussion on cannabis.
I like the points Max Kleiman made, but if the government has shown us anything, it's that they won't create the most rational solution. We will end up with either the tobacco or alcohol model of regulation and leave tens of billions of dollars on the table every year. If that money went to schools and improved education, drug abuse in general would go way down.
All this talk about MJ makes me want to go out for a quick bowl.. But b4 I do I gotta say that when it's true that today's weed is stronger you get to smoke less of it.. And in this economy we have stretch what few bucks we have..compared to smoking nasty ass weed and lots of it to get a fair high..this the future now we have productive lives to live and I can't be dealing with weed that is weak.
***** it's called dabbing, my friend
+kanolemaster +BobMarleyNug420 also further legalizing weed would have a trusted source who you could hold accountable compared to a drug dealers weed which could be laced with other drugs who can't be held accountable. Plus funds stay some what here in country and state, and not to drug lords and cartels.
***** I have arthritis and fibro causes me to have sciatic nerve pain it doesn't get rid of the pain but it eases it, dispensaries can better direct you toward a strain that wont make you feel as groggy but will help with the pain. the more you do it the less lazy you will feel. you just gotta start being productive and once you start it will actually feel easier to get the momentum to keep going! I usually get school work done because of that you just need to force yourself to do it in the beginning
I didn't think anyone could make pot so uncool.
Its more then 10% of high school seniors now hahahaha
i would say its now 15% of freshman, and goes up from there
Honestly, and when you get to college you just assume everyone smokes haha
Metrics of use are okay for a proxy for demand, I suppose. But that tells us absolutely nothing about whether or not these users are having a problem.
It's a brave new world
+Hannes Lúðvíksson "O brave new world, That has such people in't"
Soma is what they would take when hard times opened their eyes
Saw pain in a new way, high stakes for a few names
Racing against sun beams, losing against their dreams
hahahahaha
As much as i want to give him shit for his unexperienced comments, he is honestly trying to help people. so were here to be understanding and hope that he gets it by the time he is dead
+MrNtron if not there is always next life time
+MrNtron wut.
YES SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS US VAPORS. really i truly believe that in the next 10-20 we will all be vaping as opposed to smoking, maybe not entirely with cannabis because concentrates actually come from plants, where as eliquid does not actually use plants at and is synthesized. we can't grow our own eliquid and we can't synthesize our pot at home yet:/
Holy crap, who did the closed captioning on this?
it's auto generated
default text to speech software
He never mentions people can grow their own plants
Im really curious what worse for young people alcohol or cannabis? Like obviously minors should use either.
Alcohol by quite a long way
I don't get how y'all keep echoes down in a concrete room. Is it done in post?
+Isaac Davis I'm no audio expert, but it sounds to me like they might each have their own boom mic (Kleins voice is so much quieter when you hear him make acknowledgements while Kleiman is talking). They are also almost certainly using a noisegate on the audio, which shoves down the ambience when there's no vocal signal (between sentences)
200 last me a month aren't that bad
hes obviously never taken a proper dab, itll make you cough way more than a old fashion bong rip
Wait wait, who's selling for $2 a gram? I live in Florida and its $10 a gram all day here
wtf this dude contradicting himself. He said concentrates would replace smoking bud in 10 years, but then he says later on that its the "crack of cannabis" and "dabbing is just a fad" wut?
IKR!!?
I'm not sure what exactly he is trying to say
This aged well. Not.
oi beard guy leningrad is now called st petersburg
diamond_man1000 i thought he said kaliningrad
dabbing is not a fab anymore
This guy didn't foresee the issues around vaping.
did he just say that u can get stoned on 2 bucks worth of weed?
I can get a dab at the pot shop for 2 bucks
he was talking about the first 2 months of smoking for your first time ever with casual use, you require very little to get very high.
It's already more than 10% of hs seniors that have used it
you Guys might want to consider buying a carpet and that pillar on the right looks cracked.
This guy never smoked in his life
OG B Good for him.
Ezra Klein is blushing a little too much...
The Doritos DO cost more!
is it possible to just legalize marijuana but ban the sale of marijuana, and shut down commercial sellers. when so many people were smoking weed in 1979 as he said, had we already as a society widely known the harms of marijuana, and had social norms against it? what if we just kept it illegal but vastly lowered prison sentences and have better rehab programs?
"the doritos cost more!" hahahahahaha
You should show someone who is pro now that you got the fake science out of the way.
His first sentence is him saying prohibition is the worst
Why waste your time with someone so low functioning. He couldn't even focus his attention for one minute.
5:15 breweries are built by people that drink on average 4 or more drinks a day? lol ok bro