Medical marijuana

[BermudaBound2014]

9 minutes ago, hallux said:

 

None of which matters for cruise passengers if the GLOBAL maritime regulations don't change to allow the substance on the ship...

 

correct. 

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, hallux said:

 

None of which matters for cruise passengers if the GLOBAL maritime regulations don't change to allow the substance on the ship...

Absolutely. 

[njhorseman]

2 hours ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

 

After the next election, I will be surprised if there are more than a couple states remaining where recreational usage is illegal. That alone is going to add great pressure to the Feds. IMO; when voters in 48 out of 50 states have voted to legalize recreational usage, the feds should not be far behind. 

In the next election? No, that's way off. Recreational use is currently only legal in 19 states and only 5 states are voting on legalization this November. Even if all 5 states approve legalization recreational use would still be illegal in a (slim) majority of states, not just a couple of states. The decriminalization adopted by many states doesn't equate to legality.

https://www.cnet.com/news/politics/marijuana-laws-by-state-is-pot-legal-where-you-live/#:~:text=According to the National Conference,New York%2C Nevada%2C Oregon%2C

 

Edited October 22, 2022 by njhorseman

[IronRobi]

On 10/21/2022 at 12:44 PM, MoCruiseFan said:

Any that have nicotine are vastly more dangerous.  It is purely logical.  

 

It's not logical though. They have identified over 7,000 chemicals from the 600some ingredients in a cigarette and over 70 of them directly cause cancer. I get what you're saying about the particle size, but you're relating that to just 1 of the 600 ingredients in a cigarette. And this is not contradicting science, because the science says it's safer! (but still not safe). The director of Public Health England pretty much said it best. "If you don't smoke, don't vape. But if you do smoke, there is no situation where it would be better for your health to continue smoking rather than switching completely to vaping."

[UKstages]

On 10/16/2022 at 1:52 PM, BermudaBound2014 said:

 

23 states have legalized marijuana. Another 15 states have legalization on the ballot in 2022. Since you have such a strong aversion to the smell, you may want keep this data set in mind when traveling in the USA :-D. 

 

not so sure of the "data set" you cite here, but, regardless, it's a false equivalency.

 

no state has legalized the recreational smoking of marijuana - in public -  in places where cigarette smoking is prohibited. one is generally allowed to smoke marijuana only in one's own home and that's about it. one generally can't light up - legally -  in a casino, in a smoking area at a stadium or on a street corner or most other places that aren't one's home.

[ChiefMateJRK]

29 minutes ago, UKstages said:

 

not so sure of the "data set" you cite here, but, regardless, it's a false equivalency.

 

no state has legalized the recreational smoking of marijuana - in public -  in places where cigarette smoking is prohibited. one is generally allowed to smoke marijuana only in one's own home and that's about it. one generally can't light up - legally -  in a casino, in a smoking area at a stadium or on a street corner or most other places that aren't one's home.

Have you really reviewed the specific laws in 23 states?  If you don't "do dope," why are you so interested in this stuff?  I think you just made that up.

[BermudaBound2014]

11 hours ago, UKstages said:

 

not so sure of the "data set" you cite here, but, regardless, it's a false equivalency.

 

no state has legalized the recreational smoking of marijuana - in public -  in places where cigarette smoking is prohibited. one is generally allowed to smoke marijuana only in one's own home and that's about it. one generally can't light up - legally -  in a casino, in a smoking area at a stadium or on a street corner or most other places that aren't one's home.

 

 

Aren't you from NY? You should know this. Police can't approach, stop, summons, arrest, or search someone for smoking pot in public. How relevant is the letter of the law in reality? 

 

I frequent Ann Arbor, Michigan where marijuana use in public may not be legal by the letter of the law, but you can not walk down main street without experiencing the smell and I have personally witnessed police just smile as they walk by.

 

 

 

Personally, I think that there is a slippery slope when we start making laws we have no intention of enforcing. That is why I believe that the feds will move to make use legal sooner rather than later. Between legalized medical, legalized recreational, and de-crim policies; 41 states are moving toward acceptance. Sure there is a difference between decrim laws and it being outright legal; but what appears in the book as a law and what is happening in the streets is inconsistent. IMO; It won't be long now.

 

 

 

 

 

[ontheweb]

52 minutes ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

 

 

Aren't you from NY? You should know this. Police can't approach, stop, summons, arrest, or search someone for smoking pot in public. How relevant is the letter of the law in reality? 

 

I frequent Ann Arbor, Michigan where marijuana use in public may not be legal by the letter of the law, but you can not walk down main street without experiencing the smell and I have personally witnessed police just smile as they walk by.

 

 

 

Personally, I think that there is a slippery slope when we start making laws we have no intention of enforcing. That is why I believe that the feds will move to make use legal sooner rather than later. Between legalized medical, legalized recreational, and de-crim policies; 41 states are moving toward acceptance. Sure there is a difference between decrim laws and it being outright legal; but what appears in the book as a law and what is happening in the streets is inconsistent. IMO; It won't be long now.

 

 

 

 

 

I once had a college professor who definitely agrees with you. He said the worst 2 laws ever were speeding and alternate side of the street parking. And the reason they were the worst laws was that people routinely broke them with no consequences, and once you broke a law with no consequences the next law was much easier to break.

[BermudaBound2014]

47 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

I once had a college professor who definitely agrees with you. He said the worst 2 laws ever were speeding and alternate side of the street parking. And the reason they were the worst laws was that people routinely broke them with no consequences, and once you broke a law with no consequences the next law was much easier to break.

University of Michigan by chance? Lol 😉

[sanger727]

3 hours ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

 

 

Aren't you from NY? You should know this. Police can't approach, stop, summons, arrest, or search someone for smoking pot in public. How relevant is the letter of the law in reality? 

 

I frequent Ann Arbor, Michigan where marijuana use in public may not be legal by the letter of the law, but you can not walk down main street without experiencing the smell and I have personally witnessed police just smile as they walk by.

 

 

 

Personally, I think that there is a slippery slope when we start making laws we have no intention of enforcing. That is why I believe that the feds will move to make use legal sooner rather than later. Between legalized medical, legalized recreational, and de-crim policies; 41 states are moving toward acceptance. Sure there is a difference between decrim laws and it being outright legal; but what appears in the book as a law and what is happening in the streets is inconsistent. IMO; It won't be long now.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm really confused about what your point is. You quoted someone who said that no state allows people to smoke marijuana in places where cigarette smoking is banned. I don't think anything about this disagrees with that. What they are telling them is that they can't stop someone for smoking "marijuana" since it is now legal. That as legitimate as saying they can't stop someone for smoking "nicotine" since it is legal. That doesn't mean they can't stop someone from smoking in a place where smoking is banned. Regardless of what the person is smoking; no smoking means no smoking. 

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

University of Michigan by chance? Lol 😉

No, actually Cornell University.

[fshagan]

On 10/21/2022 at 10:04 AM, BermudaBound2014 said:

 

You are misinformed. Take a look at the research associated with  "Charlotte's Web' and seizures.

 

Regarding vaping.... I would hope that anyone using a vape (tobacco or otherwise) is aware of the connection popcorn lung. 

 

 

A couple of things - one, the FDA has approved a cannabis derived CBD drug called Epidiolex. This is one reason that the Sch. 1 listing does not fit any longer; indeed, our government has found a medical use for cannabis in treating pediatric seizure disorders. Epidiolex had to be developed by a non-American company because of it's Sch. 1 status - it is next to impossible to do research on different cannabis strains in America. So when people say "it hasn't been tested" its kind of a catch-22 because it cannot legally be tested. At least as long as it's on Sch. 1.

 

Popcorn lung has only happened in black market vapes where the formula is adulterated to cheapen the production costs. It does not happen with commercially available nicotine or cannabis vapes (at least in states like CA where there are strict standards for production of cannabis products), without someone breaking the law. 

 

But I wouldn't rush out to start vaping if you don't already. My advice is that if you don't smoke, don't start. If you smoke cigarettes, see if vaping nicotine suits you better. It's 95% safer than cigarettes according to Royal College of Physicians in the UK, and is very successful as being the bridge between smoking and cessation of tobacco products (much more effective than gum, patches or other smoking cessation products).

 

Marijuana remains illegal at the federal level and ports, being "ports of entry", can and will arrest people for possession. It doesn't happen often, but it is possible. Many people get away with cannabis vapes as they don't smell, don't look any different than nicotine vapes, and are not as obvious as a bag of weed. Easier to smuggle and get past CBP are cannabis oil capsules that are indistinguishable from Vitamin E capsules. But, you are taking some risk of arrest and prosecution for possession of cannabis.

[vtgumby]

On 11/25/2019 at 2:29 AM, erdoran said:

I get the “no medical marijuana” and the reasons, but I have to say for the LEGIT users it sucks;  My hubby has restless leg syndrome (short description:  he kicks the heck out of me all night in his sleep and he barely sleeps).  After 4 or 5 neurologists and sleep doctors,and upteen different prescription meds, none of which helped more than minimally (Lyrica helped the most, at $2k/prescription) out of desperation he went to a medical marijuana dr. And got approved—and he uses two tinctures (not smokable) which HELPS!  NOTHING ELSE has come close to working

 

So now we have cruises coming up and I don’t know what we will do to control his RLS because we clearly can’t bring his tinctures along.  Maybe back to lyrica, which causes withdrawals when you stop taking it.

 

Wish there was some common sense in the laws!

Edibles?

[BermudaBound2014]

2 hours ago, sanger727 said:

I'm really confused about what your point is. You quoted someone who said that no state allows people to smoke marijuana in places where cigarette smoking is banned. I don't think anything about this disagrees with that. What they are telling them is that they can't stop someone for smoking "marijuana" since it is now legal. That as legitimate as saying they can't stop someone for smoking "nicotine" since it is legal. That doesn't mean they can't stop someone from smoking in a place where smoking is banned. Regardless of what the person is smoking; no smoking means no smoking. 

 

I quoted someone who stated: "one is generally allowed to smoke marijuana only in one's own home and that's about it".  While the law may prohibit marijuana smoking in public, my point is that the reality is quite different.

 

 

 

[BermudaBound2014]

1 hour ago, fshagan said:

 

A couple of things - one, the FDA has approved a cannabis derived CBD drug called Epidiolex. This is one reason that the Sch. 1 listing does not fit any longer; indeed, our government has found a medical use for cannabis in treating pediatric seizure disorders.  Thank you for making my point, as I was responding to a poster who stated that medicinal marijuana had no proven 'life or death' use.

 

Popcorn lung has only happened in black market vapes where the formula is adulterated to cheapen the production costs.  What I tell the youth is that if they choose to smoke vape they are choosing to be the independent variable in a 20 year long experiment. We really don't know the long term effects yet. 

 

But I wouldn't rush out to start vaping if you don't already. My advice is that if you don't smoke, don't start. If you smoke cigarettes, see if vaping nicotine suits you better. It's 95% safer than cigarettes according to Royal College of Physicians in the UK, and is very successful as being the bridge between smoking and cessation of tobacco products (much more effective than gum, patches or other smoking cessation products). See above. I am very hesitant to agree with the claim that vape is 95% safer than cigarettes because it's just too new. We need a much longer to study 

 

Marijuana remains illegal at the federal level and ports, being "ports of entry", can and will arrest people for possession. Agreed, although I would omit "and will" from the sentence. We don't know that all ports will arrest people for possession. In fact, I believe that some will look the other way, just like they do on the streets of Ann Arbor (and apparently NY too) :). 

 

A couple of things in red above :). 

[IronRobi]

20 hours ago, fshagan said:

It's 95% safer than cigarettes according to Royal College of Physicians in the UK

Yes, but several users here have already pointed out that it is significantly more dangerous than cigarettes. And we all know random cruise critic members trump all medical authorities worldwide right? 🙄hehehe

 

19 hours ago, vtgumby said:

Edibles?

A tincture is essentially an edible in liquid form. And still against the rules unfortunately. Although either are very unlikely to be noticed on a ship, if caught one could still face several consequences. 

[fshagan]

On 10/25/2022 at 2:14 PM, BermudaBound2014 said:

 

A couple of things in red above :). 

 

Well ...

1. Yes, I'm in agreement with you here, and responding to the comment by others that cannabis has no medical purpose.

2. You mentioned "popcorn lung" as a specific issue, and I addressed that issue. If that's a poor example to use you might not want to list it in discussions.

3. Sure, more study is needed. But since 2006 when commercial e-cigs were approved in the US, there have been many studies, and many statements from health agencies. Look for studies, and not statements, and see what you find. I don't know of any that show e-cigs as being as dangerous as cigarettes. (Cannabis, on the other hand, does have serious health risks, but they affect few people).

4. I assure you that CPB will indeed arrest you for possession of cannabis at the port.

[kasimir]

I just wanted to chip in on this as we just came back from our B2B Alaska cruise and while it is clear to me that marihuana is illegal onboard due to maritime rules (and other legalities), my impression was that most passengers are not aware and the crew doesn’t seem to care too much unless you blatantly consume it in front of them. 
 

While my wife and myself do not consume it ourselves, whenever we were on our balcony I could smell it, and I could swear that our neighbors were smoking it very regularly. Also I noticed and smelled it quite a bit on people (from a distance) for example in elevators. Yes, I have a sensitive nose 😉

 

Later on in the cruise, a waiter at the bar told us that they are aware that lot of folks take products like edibles onboard and consume it. 
 

But to be clear, it is still illegal (especially smoking anything on your balcony), but it seems especially with the Alaska cruise I just came from, that most folks really don’t care that much anymore. 

[BermudaBound2014]

On 10/25/2022 at 3:35 PM, fshagan said:

Popcorn lung has only happened in black market vapes where the formula is adulterated to cheapen the production costs. It does not happen with commercially available nicotine or cannabis vapes (at least in states like CA where there are strict standards for production of cannabis products), without someone breaking the law. 

 

7 hours ago, fshagan said:

2. You mentioned "popcorn lung" as a specific issue, and I addressed that issue. If that's a poor example to use you might not want to list it in discussions.

 

 

I was trying to avoid this because there are conflicting data, but I don't believe that you accurately addressed the issue of popcorn lung. Diacetyl, Acetoin, or Acetyl Propionyl (common vape flavorings) are not illegal in flavored vape in the USA.  Further, these chemicals in vape aren't just found on the 'black market':

 

https://www.vapedanger.com/health-risks/toxic-chemicals/diacetyl/

 

 

Regarding being banned in California:

 

 

 

I don't think we are in total disagreement here.  Obviously neither vaping or smoking tobacco are 'good for you'. My take away (and where we may differ) is that vaping may not be better for you than smoking. What I do know is that there are two opposing sides and lots of folks way smarter than me are arguing this in court right now :). 

 

[trivimp]

6 hours ago, kasimir said:

While my wife and myself do not consume it ourselves, whenever we were on our balcony I could smell it, and I could swear that our neighbors were smoking it very regularly. Also I noticed and smelled it quite a bit on people (from a distance) for example in elevators. Yes, I have a sensitive nose 😉

 

We had the same experience on our Alaska cruise this spring.  A distant whiff from a balcony three or four cabins upwind, a distinctive trace in a crowd that says someone toked up recently.  All The Time!

 

I may have also pulled a Griner on a different cruise (packed some edibles without thinking it through) & neither the airport nor the cruise security noticed or cared.  They're clearly not searching at the level to find something like that.  

[fshagan]

11 hours ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

I was trying to avoid this because there are conflicting data, but I don't believe that you accurately addressed the issue of popcorn lung. Diacetyl, Acetoin, or Acetyl Propionyl (common vape flavorings) are not illegal in flavored vape in the USA.  Further, these chemicals in vape aren't just found on the 'black market':

 

https://www.vapedanger.com/health-risks/toxic-chemicals/diacetyl/

 

 

This is a common tactic. Find a chemical that, in high concentrations or at very high temperatures, could cause a problem, and state that. Then make the conclusion that there are numerous cases of "popcorn lung" possible because of this. It is simply a debating technique and has nothing to do with the actual science.

 

Diacetyl is found in cigarette smoke at concentrations of about 335 mcg vs 9 mcg in vapes. There has yet to be any link between vaping and popcorn lung in any study.  Snopes did a write up of it here. The article explains the limits of the Harvard study you cited, and why "76%" isn't an accurate percentage of the vape juice that had the flavoring in it (they only tested 8 brands).

 

I can find a case of "popcorn lung" caused by microwave popcorn exposure, but not one from e-cigs. A man who ate microwave popcorn daily for 10 years, and loved to whiff in the aroma of the butter smell developed the disease, obliterative bronchiolitis.

 

The link between popcorn lung and e-cigs simply does not exist, so the anti-vape crowd needs to find a new boogeyman. There may be dangers we don't know about that could develop decades from now, but we know there is no link between e-cigs and popcorn lung.

[BermudaBound2014]

14 hours ago, fshagan said:

 

This is a common tactic. Find a chemical that, in high concentrations or at very high temperatures, could cause a problem, and state that. Then make the conclusion that there are numerous cases of "popcorn lung" possible because of this. It is simply a debating technique and has nothing to do with the actual science.

 

Diacetyl is found in cigarette smoke at concentrations of about 335 mcg vs 9 mcg in vapes. There has yet to be any link between vaping and popcorn lung in any study.  Snopes did a write up of it here. The article explains the limits of the Harvard study you cited, and why "76%" isn't an accurate percentage of the vape juice that had the flavoring in it (they only tested 8 brands).

 

I can find a case of "popcorn lung" caused by microwave popcorn exposure, but not one from e-cigs. A man who ate microwave popcorn daily for 10 years, and loved to whiff in the aroma of the butter smell developed the disease, obliterative bronchiolitis.

 

The link between popcorn lung and e-cigs simply does not exist, so the anti-vape crowd needs to find a new boogeyman. There may be dangers we don't know about that could develop decades from now, but we know there is no link between e-cigs and popcorn lung.

 

Fair enough. I get what you are laying down and appreciate the time you took to reply. I referenced the Harvard study in response to your claim that these chemicals are only found on the black market. 

 

We know that there is a link between popcorn lung and diacetyl and we know that diacetyl is in vape. The Harvard study concluded exactly what I've been suggesting. More study is needed to evaluate the exposure of diacetyl from flavored vape (because we do know that diacetyl causes popcorn lung in other scenarios).

 

Here is the 2016 Harvard study conclusion:

 

 

 

 

Our discussion (thank you) led me to look for more recent research which suggests that there maybe be far more dangers to vaping than popcorn lung. I didn't spend a lot of time, and only looked for publications in the last six months. I came across a very small study by Harvard published in Sept of 2022 which concluded that "body of toxicological evidence that nicotine vaping exposures can harm the lung." is growing. harvard gazette. 

 

There was another study by the New England Journal of Medicine (May 13, 2022) which also concludes that vaping does harm the lungs but emphasizes that "long term health risks are largely unknown". New England Journal of Medicine

 

I look forward to results from the study from the University of Louisiana School of Medicine which is specifically looking at connection between vape and flavoring. They just got 3.6 Million to conduct the study so at least we know that there is research being done to help sort this out.

 

In the meantime; I will continue to suggest to those vaping that they are an independent variable in an experiment which will last decades before we are confident in knowing the long-term dangers from vaping.

 

And while off topic, I do appreciate the discussion because I have learned from it.

 

To the OP; Bringing marijuana on board is still illegal :-D. 

 

Edited October 28, 2022 by BermudaBound2014

[sunny aurora]

On 10/20/2022 at 4:06 PM, sanger727 said:

 

But it's not. Maybe things are different in Canada than in the US. But in the US all "medications" are run through rigorous clinical trials and then approved by the FDA. Marijuana has never done that. It's not a medication. It's essentially treated the same as a supplement once you have a medical card. Legal, but not proven to work, regulated, or legally protected. Also, if we are being honest, the medical side as turned into a bit of a joke in the US. Groupon sells medical marijuana cards now. 

Marijuana is not treated like a supplement.   No supplement is a c-1 substance.   No supplement is addicting.   The laws are clear on this matter, no individual can legally possess marijuana because there is no fda approved product and so, no legal prescription for it exists. 

 

In the world of controlled substances, when state and federal law conflict, the stricter law prevails.  That is why a number of states have gabapentin as a controlled substance and New York treats benzodiazepines like c-2s.  

 

A limited number of cbd products can be treated like supplements.   FDA has had to crackdown on them because they were making medical claims  

[sanger727]

12 minutes ago, sunny aurora said:

Marijuana is not treated like a supplement.   No supplement is a c-1 substance.   No supplement is addicting.   The laws are clear on this matter, no individual can legally possess marijuana because there is no fda approved product and so, no legal prescription for it exists. 

 

In the world of controlled substances, when state and federal law conflict, the stricter law prevails.  That is why a number of states have gabapentin as a controlled substance and New York treats benzodiazepines like c-2s.  

 

A limited number of cbd products can be treated like supplements.   FDA has had to crackdown on them because they were making medical claims  

No supplement is addicting?

 

Parents sue over son's death after he took kratom supplement - ABC News (go.com)

 

Not sure what you mean by "no individual can legally possess marijuana". Obviously, that is not true. Given the number of states with recreational use and "medical" use. 

[CILCIANRQTS]

Hey Mods…

Nearly 95% of this thread has absolutely NOTHING to do with cruising.

May be time to lock it down??